Claim that England's 2018 bid 'violated rules’ in wooing Jack Warner but Greg Dyke questions findings over Qatar 2022
A defiant Greg Dyke hit back at Fifa’s “joke” corruption investigation into
the award of the next two World Cups on Thursday night, after it had
condemned England's
conduct during the process.
The head judge of world football’s governing body stunned the Football
Association and members of the country’s 2018 bid team on Thursday when he
criticised their doomed attempt to land the tournament, much more than the
successful efforts of Qatar and Russia.
Hans-Joachim Eckert’s summary was acutely embarrassing for England, whose
star-studded final pitch for votes was led by the Duke of Cambridge, Prime
Minister David Cameron and David Beckham.
It was the conduct of England 2018’s leaders prior to that which fell foul of
the German judge in a 42-page document which refused to rule out
disciplinary action against those involved. The credibility of his summary
was torpedoed, however, by the author of the report on which it is based,
Fifa’s chief investigator Michael J Garcia, who said he would appeal against
its conclusions.
FA chairman Dyke, who only joined the organisation last year, said: “It makes
a mockery of the whole process if the report doesn’t reflect what he
believed. We’ve always wanted the full Garcia report published. You may have
to take out some names who spoke in the belief of confidentiality. It’s a
bit of a joke now though.
“It’s undermined the whole process. If the person doing the investigation is
saying, ‘Actually, what they’re saying isn’t what I said’, what’s the point
of it?”
Dyke’s comments came after Eckert’s report accused England’s bid of damaging “the image of Fifa and the bidding process”.
The bid team were found to have “violated bidding rules” in their attempts to woo disgraced former Fifa vice-president Jack Warner, including securing a job in the UK for a family friend of the controversial grandee and paying for a £35,000 gala dinner for Caribbean officials.
England 2018’s targeting of the block of Fifa executive committee votes apparently controlled by Warner led to him “showering the bid team with inappropriate requests” which were “often accommodated”.
The report added: “England’s response to Mr Warner’s - improper - demands, in at a minimum always seeking to satisfy them in some way, damaged the integrity of the ongoing bidding process.”
It also revealed that Lord Triesman, England’s bid chairman at the time, would not cooperate with the investigation, despite using Parliamentary privilege to make a number of allegations about the 2010 ballot.
Eckert’s criticism was rejected by former England 2018 chief operating officer Simon Johnson as a “politically-motivated whitewash”. Johnson insisted the bid had complied with the rules and questioned why Qatar had been cleared when it was found to have paid $1.8 million (£1.15 million) to sponsor an event organised by the confederation of a number of Fifa ExCo members.
He said: “It is a politically-motivated whitewash and I am not sure how we can have confidence in the outcome of this report.
“The headlines today end up being about the England bid when it should be about how it has exonerated Qatar, which has overseen the deaths of hundreds of migrant workers and which has been described by the US government as funding terrorist organisations.
“In relation to England’s bid, I was satisfied at all times that we complied with the rules of the ethics code. We also gave full and transparent disclosure to the investigation, which many others did not do. All these things are being said about England when the investigation was set up around the terrible allegations about corruption involving Qatar.”
The FA refused to accept “any criticism regarding the integrity of England’s bid or any of the individuals involved”.
Dyke also suggested England had been penalised for cooperating fully, while others were spared for being less transparent. Asked if England had damaged the image of Fifa, he told Sky Sports News: “I think it’s quite hard to damage the image of Fifa. What it tells you is that the people who cooperated the most got criticised and those who didn’t cooperate at all didn’t get anything, which seems odd by anybody’s standards.”
Dyke said Eckert’s report had failed to answer why the 2022 World Cup was given to a desert state, and questioned the German’s ruling that Qatar’s ExCo member, Mohamed bin Hammam, was not working for its bid.
He said: “I still don’t understand why the 2022 World Cup was given to Qatar when it was quite clear from Fifa’s own technical committee that said it would be high-risk. I don’t understand it any more than I understood it then.
“The question about Qatar is all about Mr Bin Hammam and all about whether Mr Bin Hammam was representing Qatar and the Qatari bid or whether he was just representing his own interests. They’ve come to the conclusion that he was representing his own interests. I still find that quite difficult to take.”
Dyke’s comments came after Eckert’s report accused England’s bid of damaging “the image of Fifa and the bidding process”.
The bid team were found to have “violated bidding rules” in their attempts to woo disgraced former Fifa vice-president Jack Warner, including securing a job in the UK for a family friend of the controversial grandee and paying for a £35,000 gala dinner for Caribbean officials.
England 2018’s targeting of the block of Fifa executive committee votes apparently controlled by Warner led to him “showering the bid team with inappropriate requests” which were “often accommodated”.
The report added: “England’s response to Mr Warner’s - improper - demands, in at a minimum always seeking to satisfy them in some way, damaged the integrity of the ongoing bidding process.”
It also revealed that Lord Triesman, England’s bid chairman at the time, would not cooperate with the investigation, despite using Parliamentary privilege to make a number of allegations about the 2010 ballot.
Eckert’s criticism was rejected by former England 2018 chief operating officer Simon Johnson as a “politically-motivated whitewash”. Johnson insisted the bid had complied with the rules and questioned why Qatar had been cleared when it was found to have paid $1.8 million (£1.15 million) to sponsor an event organised by the confederation of a number of Fifa ExCo members.
He said: “It is a politically-motivated whitewash and I am not sure how we can have confidence in the outcome of this report.
“The headlines today end up being about the England bid when it should be about how it has exonerated Qatar, which has overseen the deaths of hundreds of migrant workers and which has been described by the US government as funding terrorist organisations.
“In relation to England’s bid, I was satisfied at all times that we complied with the rules of the ethics code. We also gave full and transparent disclosure to the investigation, which many others did not do. All these things are being said about England when the investigation was set up around the terrible allegations about corruption involving Qatar.”
The FA refused to accept “any criticism regarding the integrity of England’s bid or any of the individuals involved”.
Dyke also suggested England had been penalised for cooperating fully, while others were spared for being less transparent. Asked if England had damaged the image of Fifa, he told Sky Sports News: “I think it’s quite hard to damage the image of Fifa. What it tells you is that the people who cooperated the most got criticised and those who didn’t cooperate at all didn’t get anything, which seems odd by anybody’s standards.”
Dyke said Eckert’s report had failed to answer why the 2022 World Cup was given to a desert state, and questioned the German’s ruling that Qatar’s ExCo member, Mohamed bin Hammam, was not working for its bid.
He said: “I still don’t understand why the 2022 World Cup was given to Qatar when it was quite clear from Fifa’s own technical committee that said it would be high-risk. I don’t understand it any more than I understood it then.
“The question about Qatar is all about Mr Bin Hammam and all about whether Mr Bin Hammam was representing Qatar and the Qatari bid or whether he was just representing his own interests. They’ve come to the conclusion that he was representing his own interests. I still find that quite difficult to take.”
No comments:
Post a Comment