It's not edicts from above, it's limiting what you say and how you say it because you fear repercussions. As twisted as it sounds, the release of Fifa's probe into possible ethics violations in bidding for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, felt like just that.<\/p>\n
Chief investigator Michael Garcia saw his 350-page report distilled to a summary of just 42 pages, half of them generic boilerplate. <\/p>\n
The other half were mostly either long-established facts (like Jack Warner's shenanigans) or infractions deemed to be minor. Garcia has already lodged an appeal with Fifa, believing that Hans-Joachim Eckert, the head of the adjudicatory branch of the ethics committee, misrepresented his findings. <\/p>\n
(What this actually means remains to be seen ... technically, the guy who would be judging the merit of Garcia's appeal would be Eckert himself which, of course, wouldn't make sense. Though, in Fifa world, you never know.) <\/p>\n
What appears obvious, though, is that if Garcia's report was meant to serve as evidence of Fifa's renewed transparency, it did not serve its purpose at all. Forget stripping Qatar of 2022 or Russia of 2018. That was always going to be far-fetched. The goal was for Fifa to show it could run a credible investigation of itself. It failed to do so. <\/p>\n
Nobody has come out of this with any more confidence that Fifa can self-police. If anything, matters are even murkier. From witnesses refusing to cooperate to entire bid committees proving to be \"extremely unhelpful\" (Eckert did not name them, but was clearly referring to Spain-Portugal). From former executive committee members who simply \"could not be found\" to computers being destroyed. Not to mention the explanation as to why the report could not be made public; to this day, according to Eckert, only four people, including Garcia, have seen it. <\/p>\n
Indeed, you can rewind it all the way back to the appointment of Garcia. Since 2005 he has been persona non grata in Russia because, in his previous job as a district attorney, he had prosecuted a Russian weapons dealer in a trial that Moscow deemed \"politically motivated\". Was he really the best choice to investigate Russia when his past meant he would not be allowed into the country? <\/p>\n
Ultimately, the probe - or, rather, Eckert's summary of the probe - found \"issues\" with eight of the nine bids for 2018 and 2022 (kudos to Belgium-Holland 2018, the only bid committee found to be whiter than white). Which raises the question: if Fifa don't emerge from this with greater credibility, why hold an investigation in the first place? Surely sticking your head in the sand - something Fifa have had no trouble doing in years past - would have been a better option than this ham-fisted affair? <\/p>\n
Maybe he's one of those football men who has \"the bug\". Were David Moyes akin to the majority of his colleagues, it's safe to say he wouldn't be sitting in San Sebastian, working out how to get Real Sociedad up the table. Not when you know that if you bide your time and talk to the right people, Spurs, Newcastle or Everton might be waiting for you. A step down from his old employer, sure, but compared to \"La Real\" more money, more resources and more power. <\/p>\n
Instead, he has opted for a club that have been underachieving this season, with the second lowest points-total in La Liga. They are better than that - finishing seventh last year and fourth the year before - so you'd expect them to work their way up, even with limited effort. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Continued here: It's not edicts from above, it's limiting what you say and how you say it because you fear repercussions. As twisted as it sounds, the release of Fifa's probe into possible ethics violations in bidding for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, felt like just that. Chief investigator Michael Garcia saw his 350-page report distilled to a summary of just 42 pages, half of them generic boilerplate Continue reading
\nFifa taking the Michael<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"