A CARDINAL SIN…football in the dock
Source : Kutlwano
Author : Puso Kedidimetse
Location : FRANCISTOWN
Event : Interview
In fact, examples abound of football clubs, players, officials, and associations that learnt the hard way after what they considered an honest pursuit of justice.
In Botswana, BDF XI can attest to that after they received stiffer penalties for dragging the Botswana Premier League (BPL) to court, contrary to FIFA statutes.
BDF XI`s gripe was that BPL had postponed their league fixture against Mochudi Centre Chiefs without informing them, just so the latter could play an international friendly against South African glamour club, Kaizer Chiefs.
Matebele, as BDF XI are well known, took the matter to court and won, only for the BPL to dock them six points and impose a P10 000 fine for breaking FIFA rules.
Just as murmurs over the harshness of the sentence grew louder, the then league`s chief prosecutor, Tshiamo Rantao, quelled them when he argued that the sentence was lenient given that FIFA prescribed expulsion for such misdemeanour.
Nearby in South Africa, the South African Football Association (SAFA) in November 2013 expelled 15 members of the Free State region from all football activities for referring a football matter to a court of law. The charge was that the members had brought the game, SAFA, and, sponsors into disrepute.
SAFA President, Danny Jordan commented on the SAFA website that they would not tolerate individuals who flagrantly violated FIFA statutes by taking football matters to court when SAFA dispute resolution structures were available.
In yet another similar situation in 2012, FIFA warned former Zimbabwe national team coach, Sunday Chidzambwa and former Zimbabwe Football Association (ZIFA) chief executive, Henrietta Rushwaya, against taking football matters to court lest they violated FIFA statutes.
The two officials had been expelled for challenging the legality of the Independent Ethics Committee that handled their case after being implicated in match fixing during the Asia-gate scandal that rocked Zimbabwean football in 2012.
FIFA director of legal affairs then, Marco Villiger and head of disciplinary and governance, were quoted as saying any player or official banned over the scandal could only seek recourse through ZIFA structures.
Fair enough, but how many of Africa`s 54 football associations have competent structures to do so? Well, your guess is as good as mine but the three forgoing scenarios are but only a fascinating microcosm of the power that FIFA has become today.
Yet, when the world soccer governing body was established on May 21, 1904, it was highly regarded and welcomed as a development that would manage the global game for the good of society.
Many would probably agree that FIFA has become such a poisoned chalice that nation-states tremble to the point of flip-flop whenever it flexes its muscles, particularly because the body also abhors governments` interference in football activities.
While it is reasonable that football and politics should not mix, many agree that the institution is a bit too powerful for comfort, particularly as regards its interference with people`s fundamental rights.
On the other hand, FIFA believes it has effective structures that one need not approach courts when aggrieved. Accordingly, FIFA Development Officer for Eastern and Southern Africa, Ashford Mamelodi, opines that enough has been done to capacitate associations to resolve football related disputes.
However, he reckons that while FIFA has direct oversight over football matters, he does not believe associations are doing enough to implement its statutes. He says immediately a club entertains the idea of going to court, the association should act with speed to warn them of the consequences. “I don`t think associations are doing enough to implement [FIFA] statutes and that is why they always wait for a club to go to court before taking action,” says Mamelodi.
Meanwhile, the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS), which is the sport`s highest court, explicitly warns against recourse to ordinary courts of law unless specifically provided for in FIFA regulations.
Notwithstanding, in developing countries affiliate associations are at different levels of development in terms of availability of sports dispute resolution mechanisms.
Although national associations continue to rely on tribunals made up of part-time elected officials, complainants often doubt their impartiality and competency, particularly because they are not trained enough to be able to effectively resolve football disputes which end up imploding.
Given this state of affairs, Mamelodi says FIFA has embarked on an exercise to strengthen constitutions of regional football associations. “Currently, we are in Botswana to assist with the creation of arbitration tribunals and the ethics committees which will focus on other issues which the disciplinary bodies don`t have capacity to handle such as corruption”, says Mamelodi.
This, he adds, will ensure that member associations` statutes are at par with those of FIFA. Botswana`s tribunals include; the player`s status committee, national disciplinary committee and the National Appeals Boards (NAB) under the Botswana National Sports Council (BNSC).
Unfortunately, some of these individuals are club officials or are associated with some members of national associations, which make their objectivity in resolving disputes suspect to the aggrieved parties.
BDF XI chairperson, Brigadier Boikanyo Addens, could not agree more, arguing that the decision dock his club six points was not fair as it relied on a draconian law which has been overtaken by events, especially in Botswana. FIFA, reckons Addens, should change the said law, especially in Botswana where people who sit in sports dispute resolution bodies are conflicted and serve vested interests of certain clubs.
“There can be no fair play when your opponents are the ones who are expected to mediate on a dispute which has a bearing on who will win the championship,” he charges. Besides, Addens says it is not proper for FIFA statutes to override a country`s constitution.
If the BDF XI were to be used as an example, one discovers some of the most confusing inconsistencies in the application of justice by local tribunals.
For instance, in 2006 Township Rollers were not charged for taking BFA to court over a decision relating to the Coke cup final. Great North Tigers and Tafic did the same during promotional playoffs and Supreme Soccer Spectacular respectively back and were not charged either.
Does this point to a case of double standards? To this, Mamelodi underscores the need for clubs to be treated equally and fairly when FIFA statutes have been violated. There is also need for stringent monitoring of how such football disputes are adjudicated, he notes, adding that FIFA can take action against an association that fails to take action against the flouting of its statutes by affiliates.
Nevertheless, Mamelodi believes BFA has enough and competent human resource to adjudicate football related disputes in an equitable manner. Even then, Mamelodi charges that sometimes clubs end up opting for ordinary courts of law because of feet dragging by those charged with implementing FIFA statutes.
On the contrary, FIFA accredited agent and Glamour Sports International president, Comfort ‘Big Fish` Ramatebele argues that currently the BFA does not have effective structures and capacity to deliver justice in football related disputes because it relies on volunteers, especially in the legal department.
Ramatebele reckons that the association needs a fully-fledged legal department which can deal with issues expeditiously unlike the current set up where it can take weeks or months for the player`s status committee and national disciplinary committee to resolve a small issue before it implodes.
“I don`t doubt the competence of the association`s legal advisor nor the premier league`s chief prosecutor in executing their mandate as I have had the privilege to deal with them in the past but to be fair to them, they are doing this job on a part time basis. They don`t have the time to apply themselves to their best ability in issues bedeviling football because they are not fulltime employees of the association,” he says.
Ramatebele notes that had the BDF XI saga been handled by an independent structure it could not have ended in a court of law.
Also, he says, the temporary suspension on Botswana Meat Commission Football Club in the past season demonstrated the BFA`s weakness in resolving football disputes which leaves members with no option but to approach courts of law.
With the emergence of new trends such as club ownership and professionalism in Botswana, Ramatebele implores the BFA to move with speed to develop a new regulatory regime staffed with independent, effective, expeditious, fair and credible experts in football disputes resolution. Ends
Teaser:
“I don`t doubt the competence of the association`s legal advisor nor the premier league`s chief prosecutor in executing their mandate as I have had the privilege to deal with them in the past but to be fair to them, they are doing this job on a part time basis."
