NOW?THAT?the Sir David Simmons report has fingered Jack Warner and Chuck Blazer, what will be the next step?
Barbados’ former Chief Justice is the chairman of the CONCACAF (Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football) ?integrity committee and he tabled a very damaging report on the financial dealings of Warner and Blazer as it related to their handling of that organization’s funds.
Sir David presented his findings to the CONCACAF?congress held in Panama. The congress was attended by head of FIFA, the world football governing body, Sepp Blatter.
It is worthy to note that neither of the men co-operated with the committee’s investigations. This raises the question of whether they were simply being arrogant or if they had something to hide.
In such murky circumstances, I believe the average individual would do all that’s necessary to clear his name.
Warner is used to controversy, and Blazer has been entangled in the same web in recent years. With or without their co-operation, it appears that the in-depth paper trail unearthed vital information that dealt some serious damage to the reputations of both men.
For several years, they were seen as an inseparable team, like the proverbial peas in a pod. However, something obviously went wrong between them because it was Blazer who blew the whistle on the scandal of a former FIFA presidential candidate Mohamed Bin Hammam allegedly giving money to Caribbean associates in exchange for votes two years ago at a Caribbean Football Union meeting in Trinidad.
Warner, who was then CFU president, CONCACAF president and a senior FIFA vice-president, was implicated in Blazer’s charges and subsequently resigned from all of his roles in football.
Blazer was later accused of wrongdoing in CONCACAF matters, forcing his resignation as general secretary, but continued to serve as a member of the FIFA executive.
It has been reported that he will resign from that post next month. This action was pending before the laying of Sir David’s report.
Before I go any further, it makes you wonder why Blazer was allowed the privilege to continue to be an executive member on the world governing body but others like Warner and Bin Hammam were forced to resign.
Was Warner right when he implied that FIFA was bent on a witch-hunt against people from certain ethnic backgrounds in the face of universal charges of corruption and calls to clean up its act and put its house in order?
I think tht with a cloud hanging over him at the hemispheric level, Blazer should have been at least suspended from FIFA activities until his investigation was concluded.
What makes it all the more mind-boggling is that Barbadian Lisle Austin was suspended as a CONCACAF?vice-president for taking the organization to court after he was uprooted from his position in the midst of the upheaval when Blazer spilled the beans.
The substantative factor at the moment, though, is Sir David’s report and I believe that CONCACAF?needs to act in a manner that shows it will not tolerate any form of corruption or will not be protecting any of its members who have not played by the rules.
Countries, clubs and players who have been red-carded for infractions usually pay a price. Why should this same whip not be applied to administrators, former or current, who divert from the correct path or are cited for foul play?
Can any legal action be taken in view of the report?
I think the Warner/Blazer revelations will shift attention to the strength of the governance of CONCACAF?and what we can expect from it going forward in safeguarding its integrity.
Andi Thornhill is an experienced award-winning freelance sports journalist.
