Corruption FIFA International Legal

Another huge football scandal – and why the mass media in England won’t cover it

Another huge football scandal – and why the mass media in England won’t cover it

Yesterday we reported on the Mail’s story Why the Mail’s “Everything that looked wrong at Arsenal WAS wrong” is arrant nonsense.

Now one argument that could be made for running that piece in the Mail was that there is no real football news around, so the paper has to make something up.  But one look at the European press shows this is not true.

And it is not just that there is a story – it is an absolute whopper.  So big that the question yet again arises, why is the media in the UK not touching this story which is erupting on an almost daily basis?

But you will have probably guessed what the story is: it is a story of wholesale Fifa corruption, and as we know, the UK media are very reluctant to talk about this.  Largely I suspect, at the behest of the FA who want to spend millions of pounds more of taxpayers money on another bid for England to host the world cup.  What the FA don’t want, and what they have persuaded the media not to provide, is any reminder that Fifa is corrupt, and that last time the FA bid for the WC it got two votes.

Infantino goes to Suriname

So here is the latest Fifa story: In April 2017, Gianni Infantino went to visit Suriname, the smallest country in South America.  He talked to the head of state, shook some hands, went to see the football ground.

Infantino accompanied by his usual entourage including his chief assistant Mattias Grafström, made his standard speech “Suriname needs a new stadium” but then, instead of talking up their first-class seats on the scheduled flights already booked, the party hired a private jet to fly to Switzerland.

On 11 April 2017 assistant Grafström reports to Tomaz Vessel, (who is head of Fifa’s Audit & Compliance Committee), that the KLM airline the party had booked into for the return to Switzerland was canceled “for technical reasons.”  He explained, “In order to meet the President’s appointments today in Suriname and tomorrow in Europe, we considered all the alternatives, but there is no alternative but to charter an airplane.”

Compliance man Vesel replied 43 minutes later. “Thank you for the information about flight details and the situation. The situation seems to me difficult and clearly requires immediate action.”   So that is the all-clear.  But for forms sake he adds,  “Be so good as to give me (in the near future) precise information about your already agreed appointments in the region and back tomorrow in Europe.”

Only with good reason

According to the rules of Fifa put in place after the last round of scandals and backhanders, the FIFA President must not, without good reason, engage in additional expenditure (especially of hundreds of thousands or more dollars) at the expense of Fifa (and thus at the expense of the global football community) without this being subject to scrutiny.  Vesel is the key man here.   He is formally independent.  His job to look closely at events and check on anyone who is running up bills of more than a million dollars in expenses within a four-year period.

But Vesel, without seeing the list of appointments, and on the say-so of Infantino, agrees to the private jet. Fifa compliance officer Ed Hanover also gets a copy of the details, sees Vesel has said “ok” and the all-clear is given.

However then it goes quiet. Fifa declines to give any further information or answer any questions, such as the exact cost of the private flight back to Switzerland.

Six days later, on April 18, Grafström reports to Vesel and Hanover with the requested details …. He lists seven scheduled events for the stop in Suriname, even including the “light dinner with the Minister of Sport, Defense and Finance”.

OK, if that has to be, it has to be, but much more to the point, what was the urgent date the following day, on April 12th, that justified this expensive return flight?    That event that made it impossible to wait for the postponed KLM flight?

Grafström writes: “The planned meetings on April 12 in Geneva were as follows: 2:00 pm meeting with the Uefa president in Nyon, followed by another meeting in Geneva.”

A meeting with the Uefa president – ok, pretty important. .Vesel was obviously convinced. “The flight took place in accordance with the rules and regulations of FIFA,” says the report. The rules allow special travel arrangements for important business appointments.

The appointment that never was

The only problem is: there was never an appointment for the day with the Uefa president. The alleged meeting did not take place and could not have taken place. The important appointment was an invention. A fantasy.  A make-believe.  A load of old codswallop (to use the grand old English phrase).  A fabrication.  One gigantic lie.

Uefa President Aleksander Ceferin was in Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, on 12 April, four and a half hours flight from Nyon. This is revealed not by a bunch of undercover operators following a complex paper trail, but by the lavishly illustrated websites of Uefa and the Armenian Association. In Yerevan, Ceferin met with the head of state, laying the foundation stone for the new football academy, meeting the spiritual leader, visiting a brandy distillery (nice work if you can get it) and Echmiadzin Cathedral, one of the oldest in the world.  And we all know such state occasions are organised months in advance.

But, If there was no meeting in Nyon – what was the motive behind the fifa boss’ private jet trip? Did he just want to go home quickly?   Was Infantino’s mistress getting lonely (we make no allegation on this, it is given just by way of example of unacceptable reasons for private jet hire at football’s expense).   Was there anything else that would have been an acceptable reason for approval of a private jet from South America to Switzerland?

FIFA is silent on all these questions. Fifa does not and cannot deny the events took place and now simply insists that the trip was in line with the rules.

So why don’t we get this story in England?  Apart from pointing at criminal misuse of Fifa funds which we as taxpayers pay since we fund the FA, it also reveals the complete and utter arrogance of Infantino – a man already under scrutiny for many other alleged offenses.  The answer Infantino gave could have been seen to be a lie within minutes of anyone checking the schedule, but he appears that he was so utterly and completely arrogant that he said it anyway.

It is after all exactly the sort of story that you would expect the Sun, Mail, Express and the other tabloids to revel in just because it is scandal.  You would expect the Guardian to take it up because it reveals corruption.

And it is a piece of evidence that could lead to another explosion in Fifa.   For remember also that the Swiss state prosecutor (involved because of course Fifa is based in Switzerland) is now going on trial because he has had a number of secret meetings with Infantino (something completely against the rules of his office).

Silly little dolts

Plus after the English newspapers made themselves look like silly little dolts for having ignored the news that the Swiss had changed their laws and so were going to allow the US law enforcers into the Fifa meeting to arrest large numbers of Fifa officials (a story that Untold Arsenal ran and they didn’t), you might think that the media in England could have learned its lesson.

But no.  No news on Fifa.  No news on football corruption until it hits every media outlet in the world – and even then try and hide it under news about a decline in the number of starlings this year.

And why?  My guess, as I say above, is because the FA have asked the media not to touch these stories, so as not to harm their throwing another fortune donated by the tax payer in the UK, at a bid to host the world cup.

But there is more of course.  For meanwhile the Swiss federal prosecutor – the top legal man in Switzerland –  Michael Lauber, stumbled across a series of mysterious secret meetings to which he was lured by Infantino. On Wednesday, the parliamentary judicial commission in Bern decided to impeach the federal prosecutor; A criminal complaint has also been filed against the FIFA boss, which is currently being examined by the Bern judiciary. And now add to this, the Suriname lie.

And none of this is being reported in England.

Funny ol’ game.

And just for old times sake, our story from 22 January 2015 that the UK media ignored.

Switzerland take a greater interest in Fifa – at last

Legal National PL Reffymandering

Why do Liverpool keep getting the same referees?

Why do Liverpool keep getting the same referees?

You will be aware that Untold has held strong views about the PGMO, how they keep appointing the same referees over and over again and how they continually fail to have sufficient referees for the PL.

So far this season the PGMO have utilised all the 17 referees on their ‘Select list’ and, in addition, four more have done one game each.  Of those on the Select list eight have done 20 games or more whilst three have done fewer than 10 games.  It looks to me like there are only eight referees really trusted.  If the other nine are allowed to do games for some teams why not all of them?

But either they are competent or not, and surely all of the teams in the PL deserve an equal standard of refereeing.  I am sick to death of seeing Atkinson, Dean, Kavanagh, Tierney and Attwell.  I wouldn’t mind too much if I felt they were all 100% competent but they all show that they are at best erratic and at worst downright strange in their decision making.

It’s not only Arsenal that is affected by repeat refereeing though.

The runaway leaders Liverpool have only seen 11 referees.  Anthony Taylor has done most matches with  (plus another 2 as Video Referee).  To date no other club has had a referee six times.  Paul Tierney has been involved the most (9 matches) if we include his appearances as fourth official as well as Video referee – he has been involved in 30% of the Liverpool games.  Oliver, Taylor and Moss have also been involved in over a quarter of their games with six, Marriner and Pawson have been involved in over a fifth of Liverpool’s games.

Liverpool As Referee As 4th Official As Video ref Total Involvement Involvement % of games played
Michael Oliver 6 0 2 8 27.6%
Anthony Taylor 4 3 1 8 27.6%
Paul Tierney 2 1 6 9 31.0%
Craig Pawson 1 1 4 6 20.7%
Martin Atkinson 3 0 1 4 13.8%
Chris Kavanagh 3 0 1 4 13.8%
Jon Moss 3 4 1 8 27.6%
Andre Marriner 3 1 3 7 24.1%

Sheffield United have had the joint most referees with 16, they also have the fewest serial visitors with two, but even with them things are odd.  They have had both David Coote (total 11 matches in the PL) and Simon Hooper (9 matches) on four occasions – 40% of the total games the two of them have been in charge of.

As we keep saying the numbers don’t give a lot of confidence that match fixing in the PL can’t occur.  The practices in place don’t appear to be sufficient to preclude the possibility of outside influences affecting results.

Here are the total matches allocated to each of the PL referees this season:

 

Games including matchweek 29

(7-9/03/20)

Martin Atkinson 25
Anthony Taylor 23
Michael Oliver 23
Mike Dean 22
Paul Tierney 20
Kevin Friend 20
Chris Kavanagh 20
Jonathan Moss 20
Andre Marriner 17
Craig Pawson 15
Graham Scott 15
Stuart Attwell 15
Lee Mason 13
David Coote 11
Simon Hooper 9
Peter Bankes 7
Andy Madley 9
Oliver Langford 1
Robert Jones 1
Darren England 1
Tim Robinson 1

The next question to ask is “is this situation common across the other European Leagues? »  With a little digging and using data readily available on the internet here are comparable figures for total games across the other 4 major European leagues:-

Germany – Bundesliga

Referees Total games (to 23/2/20)
Dr. Felix Brych 12
Tobias Stieler 12
Markus Schmidt 11
Felix Zwayer 11
Daniel Siebert 11
Marco Fritz 11
Manuel Gräfe 10
Deniz Aytekin 10
Bastian Dankert 10
Harm Osmers 10
Sascha Stegemann 10
Christian Dingert 9
Frank Willenborg 9
Benjamin Cortus 9
Sven Jablonski 9
Patrick Ittrich 8
Daniel Schlager 8
Martin Petersen 7
Guido Winkmann 6
Dr. Robert Kampka 6
Robert Hartmann 6
Robert Schröder 6
Sören Storks 5
Tobias Welz 4
Bibiana Steinhaus 4

So in a smaller league, we have 25 referees used, one female (Bibiana Steinhaus), none more than 12 times and none  fewer than four.

Spain – La Liga

Referees Total games (to 23/2/20)
Antonio Miguel Matéu Lahoz 14
Estrada Fernández 14
Mario Melero López 14
Jesús Gil Manzano 14
Adrián Cordero Vega 14
Guillermo Cuadra Fernández 14
Javier Alberola Rojas 14
Juan Martínez Munuera 13
Medié Jiménez 13
César Soto Grado 13
José María Sánchez Martínez 13
Valentin Pizarro Gomez 13
Pablo González Fuertes 13
José Luis Munuera Montero 13
Carlos Del Cerro Grande 12
Eduardo Prieto Iglesias 12
González González 11
Santiago Jaime Latre 11
De Burgos Bengoetxea 11
Andrés Hernández 7
Alejandro Hernández 6

21 referees, all engaged in between 14 and 6 matches

Italy – Serie A

Referee Total games (to 23/2/20)
Maurizio Mariani 14
Rosario Abisso 13
Federico La Penna 13
Davide Massa 13
Marco Di Bello 12
Daniele Doveri 12
Daniele Orsato 12
Gianluca Rocchi 12
Gianpaolo Calvarese 11
Daniele Chiffi 11
Piero Giacomelli 11
Marco Guida 11
Fabio Maresca 11
Fabrizio Pasqua 11
Marco Piccinini 11
Michael Fabbri 10
Antonio Giua 10
Massimiliano Irrati 10
Luca Pairetto 10
Paolo Valeri 10
Gianluca Manganiello 9
Eugenio Abbattista 2
Juan Luca Sacchi 2
Manuel Volpi 2
Gianluca Aureliano 1
Giovanni Ayroldi 1
Francesco Fourneau 1
Livio Marinelli 1
Alessandro Prontera 1
Riccardo Ros 1
Simone Sozza 1

21 referees with between 14 and 9 matches with a further10 used for either 1 or 2 matches each

Finally France – Ligue 1

Name Matches to date
Antony Gautier 16
Hakim Ben El Hadj 15
Ruddy Buquet 15
Willy Delajod 15
Johan Hamel 14
Frank Schneider 14
Jérôme Brisard 13
Amaury Delerue 13
Mikael Lesage 13
François Letexier 13
Karim Abed 12
Florent Batta 12
Thomas Leonard 12
Jérémy Stinat 12
Clément Turpin 12
Eric Wattellier 12
Benoît Bastien 11
Jérémie Pignard 11
Olivier Thual 11
Stéphanie Frappart 10
Benoît Millot 9
Jérôme Miguelgorry 4
Alain Bieri 1

23 Referees in total, one female (Stéphanie Frappart) and Alain Bieri is Swiss not French.  With he and Migulgorry excepted all between 16 and 9 games.

So we can clearly see that the UK pattern of refereeing is out of kilter with all of the other major leagues in Europe.  Our busiest referee has done 25 matches as against 16 in France, 14 in Spain and Italy and 12 in Germany.

All of the other leagues have more referees and the individual workload is far more evenly spread between them than is the case in England.

The more one looks at the data the odder it appears.

Legal Reffymandering

Reffymandering: the new football word to describe the game in the third decade

What is in a word?

Quite a lot sometimes if it allows us to express something complex in a simple way.

The word gerrymander (originally written Gerry-mander) was invented by a writer on the Boston Gazette in 1812. It was used when the electoral boundaries in Massachusetts were redrawn to help the re-election of members of Governor Elbridge Gerry’s party.

So what does it mean when we change it to refer to refereeing in football?

Basically, it is a newly created word (thanks to our European correspondent Christophe Jost) referring to the manipulation of football matches by referees or a refereeing organisation, either to promote the interests of some clubs to the detriment of others, or to focus more power upon themselves and make it ever harder for others to challenge that power base.

And it turns out to be very handy to have this word, as opposed to the traditional phrase “match fixing” for a number of reasons.

First, match fixing can be undertaken by players who are persuaded through financial rewards not to put 100% effort into winning a game. Indeed this tactic might happen quite openly when a club just needs a draw to avoid relegation at the end of the season. In such a case the players will forego the normal desire to win in order to guarantee the one point they need. However this tactic would not in itself be against any rules providing only one of the two teams is engaged in this.

However “reffymandering” exposes the power of the referee or indeed a set of referees both to act against one team and in favour of another, and to reinforce its own absolute control over a league.

Second, it has traditionally been imagined that bias by a referee would be easy to spot – and ultimately easy to expose – because the actions of the referee can come under close scrutiny by the media. But this in itself can be overcome where a number of other factors found within the concept of reffymandering are brought into play. These factors include…

First, a general feeling that “this simply doesn’t happen,” because no one is talking about it.  Thus the reffymandering organisation needs very close liaison with a compliant media – a liaison that is so strong the media can be induced not even to discuss even the possibility of match fixing by referees

Second, where the effect is hidden through Type III match fixing in which it is the matches of rival clubs that are affected by dubious refereeing practice, rather than the club which benefits from the match fixing.

Third, where the match fixing is spread across a season, so that we have to look quite deeply at the data to see it.   This is achieved by not making all the relevant data available on one place, so that compliant journalists anxious to knock out a quick article, miss the connection, or don’t do the maths.  And it is aided by the media having the view that “fans are not interested in the minutia of statistics.”

To explore this third element a little further we can look (as we have done recently) at the “cards per game” data between clubs and comparing these figures with the number of fouls.   Although this is not desperately complex, the figures become easy to hide in England where there is a long term tradition of match commentators suggesting that maths is not something they understand, nor that the average fan is interested in or can understand.  (Remember BT Sport’s approach to the Emirates cup where the commentators claimed the award of a point for a goal as well as three for a win and one for a draw, made it impossible for them to work out who had won the trophy).

So at the moment of writing (and to take one simple example), we have a situation where Leicester get 1.05 yellow cards per game while Arsenal get 2.57 cards per game.  That seems a huge difference, and multiplied across all 38 league games in a season means many more Arsenal players than Leicester players will be suspended, and Arsenal will play many more minutes with players being extra careful in tackles etc because they are already on one yellow card.

But in order to see the effect fully, a second set of data has to be introduced: how many fouls the club has committed.  Data that is required because one would expect in broad terms a club that gets a lot of yellow cards might be expected to be committing the most fouls.

Interestingly the Premier League figures give us loads of data but not that particular factor.  You can find the most fouls committed by a player on the official site, but not fouls committed per team – which is rather odd.  For that data we have to go to the independent Footchart site.

So when data which compares fouls per team and yellow cards per team is hidden away, while so much other data is made available by the authorities, one starts to wonder.  It is no proof of anything underhand going on, but it is a little strange.

Then when virtually no one from the media seems to want to pick up this story and consider it, one wonders a little more.  And when one does the analysis and finds a very odd disparity that shows that four of the London teams are getting far more fouls given against them than others, and there are no London referees in the League, one wonders further.  Still no proof, but it is suspicious.

Add to that the fact that the referees’ organisation is so highly secretive that referees are forbidden from talking to the media, and indeed the organisation goes so far as to offer financial inducements to its referees not to talk to the media even after retirement, and we have further reason to be concerned.  Throw in the fact that it would be very easy to reduce suspicion about referees if no referee was ever allowed to take control of a game involving the same team more than twice in a season – but this is NOT done, and suspicion grows.  (And with this issue this can hardly be a question of cost, given the incredible profits that Premier League football makes).

And finally add in the fact that the mass media – even the intellectual liberal end of it – won’t touch this topic at all, and that makes the case that Reffymandering might well exist.  It is not proof, it is a suggestion that something odd is going on and needs investigating.

Indeed so many issues are raised here that one gigantic question comes to the fore: why on earth is none of this being examined by the media?   Of course, I don’t know but when faced with something I can’t explain I do try and use the scientific training I had in my student years to look for viable explanations.

One explanation is that media editors and publishers believe that the public are too stupid to be able to understand how such figures can arise legitimately and so don’t raise the issue.   Another is that PGMO has, as part of its contract, an agreement that the fairness of referees must never be questioned.   Another is that the media think that football fans wouldn’t be interested.  Which one? We can only gather information and take an informed view.

Highlighting these figures has come about through the work of people like “Nitram” and Christophe Jost who with many others kindly support the work of Untold Arsenal by providing information and undertaking research.  My position having received this data is that it doesn’t prove match fixing is going on – but it is suspicious (to me at least) that no one in the media ever takes up this issue.  Just as they ignored the fact that Uefa has admitted it does not have the resources to deal with the rise of match fixing.

That’s what makes me think Reffymandering probably exists.  It is the existence of all this data, and no serious discussion.  By which I don’t mean a 3 minute piece interviewing “an expert” on BBC Radio 5, followed by 3 minutes with the BBC’s football correspondent saying no, it is all a bit “conspiracy theory”. I mean something much more in-depth.  But the fact that we don’t even get the two sets of three minutes shows just how deeply hidden this topic is.

Reffymandering.  It’s a funny word.   But then it’s a funny ol’ game.