The statement issued by INTERPOL on 12th June is significant not only because it adds to the damage caused by reportage and legal proceedings against FIFA but also because of what their relationship was based on.
INTERPOL’s Secretary General Jürgen Stock made the decision to freeze use of financial contributions from FIFA, a decision endorsed by the Executive Committee at meetings from 10-12th June in Lyon, France.
The financial contributions in question formed part of an agreement made just 4 years ago in May 2011 for the purpose of creating a ten year Integrity in Sport program.
The agreement, and the acceptance of FIFA’s 20 million euro donation, included a clause stating ‘the Funding Party declares notably that its activities are compatible with the principles, aims and activities of INTERPOL’. FIFA’s donation to an Integrity of Sport programme, particularly one spearheaded by INTERPOL, could easily be read as a headline in The Onion given the scale of the indictment pointing to systemic criminal activity within FIFA.
A news piece posted around the time of the agreement on FIFA’s own website makes for more uncomfortable reading. Picture the scene: a packed press conference at FIFA’s home in Zurich, the suited and smiling Sepp Blatter gracing the stage alongside INTERPOL Secretary General Ronald K. Noble and an endorsement from the World Bank’s Vice-President of Integrity, Leonard McCarthy, triumphant exclamations of keeping ‘the beautiful game clean’ and “keeping the world’s most popular sport free of the corrupt influences of transnational organized crime syndicates.”
The same day that INTERPOL issued its statement, FIFA posted a response with no sense of irony which included: “This successful program is unrelated to the current issues surrounding FIFA and we believe that this unilateral decision will negatively impact the fight against criminal activity, a goal of which no supporter of the sport can be in favor”.
In truth, the funding of a corruption-fighting program that focuses on match-fixing, albeit a serious issue requiring international cooperation, is intimately connected to the current issues surrounding FIFA. In light of FIFA’s current situation, this funding looks in retrospect like the perfect ethical shroud, presenting an elaborate performance to the gathered reporters, staff and watchful fans that FIFA is on the path to redemption.
An opinion piece written by INTERPOL’s then Secretary General Ronald K Noble in the New York Times makes a passing acknowledgment that “[t]he problem is that public confidence in FIFA’s ability to police itself is at its lowest point ever” shifting to highlight how the body is taking steps to “not only root out match fixing and corruption but also clean up its reputation and bring integrity back to the game.”
Perhaps the choice to maintain a relationship with football’s governing body, despite the growing allegations against it and its weakening position in public perception was made as a means to keep them close and maintain a watchful eye over them. Perhaps the decision was taken as a way to move FIFA down a road to recovery, where it could be reformed through good deeds.
The ‘low-hanging fruit’ argument follows that positive contributions towards progressive ends made by organizations simultaneously engaged in corrupt malpractice can in no meaningful and sufficient way overwrite the much larger wrongs that it has and continues to carry out and taking these small moves towards change leaves much larger and tougher issues aside.
Similarly seen in the ‘greenwashing’ of particular fossil fuel companies through their investments in other areas of society or through their relationships with NGOs or charities, in this particular case it takes on another level given that the relationship is with an international police organization. The decision by INTERPOL to freeze the use of FIFA donations in the Integrity in Sport program but to choose to also continue the programme without FIFA points to the fact that such projects are not in themselves negative but that the partners and relationships that underpin them are important.
In a similar vein, FIFA’s response sought to emphasize the significance of the programme itself, quoting INTERPOL: the “Integrity in Sport program has helped international efforts across its 190 member countries to prevent the manipulation of sporting events and illegal gambling by criminal groups.”
That the millions-of-euros-funded program based at INTERPOL’s Global Complex in Singapore with worldwide training programmes and specific task forces produced positive results is predictable, but it is also inconsequential to the fact that should the same amount of money have been poured into a focused investigation of FIFA’s own house, the result would have perhaps been considerably more beneficial to the cleanliness of the sport.
Grabbing the low-hanging fruit offered by FIFA’s donations whilst failing to follow up on years of accusations and bring legal proceedings against the organization left the rest of the tangled roots intact.
INTERPOL Secretary General Jürgen Stock was quoted in the organization’s statement saying: “All external partners, whether public or private, must share the fundamental values and principles of the organization, as well as those of the wider law enforcement community”, which begs the question of why, given INTERPOL’s capacity to investigate the legal basis of accusations made against FIFA in the past, the decision to accept funding was not more seriously vetted.
This fact demonstrates the importance of continued pressure from investigations, activism and public criticism of corporate criminality that makes it unquestionable for those surrounding the accused to remain associated.
As ex-INTERPOL officer and former FIFA adviser on anti-corruption Chris Eaton highlights: “The real damage of this decision by Interpol is the wider perception that conflicted organizations are now deserting FIFA. It further exacerbates FIFA’s ‘unclean’ image and its escalating isolation”
Forcing organizations to think critically about relationships they have built and who they are with is vital for pushing back the creeping tentacles of corporate interest that no amount of ethical cover can undo.
