1 Which parts of the 42-page summary report could be inaccurate?
Michael Garcia, the former New York district attorney, spent 18 months compiling a 430-page report into the controversial 2018 and 2022 World Cup bids but has criticised a condensed 42-page summary into his findings by the independent ethics adjudicator Hans-Joachim Eckert. Garcia said: “Today’s decision by the chairman of the adjudicatory chamber contains numerous materially incomplete and erroneous representations of the facts and conclusions detailed in the Investigatory Chamber’s report.” Which parts of the report could have been misrepresented and which facts may have been omitted?
2 What does it take to discredit bids?
In the 42-page report, bid teams are accused of wrongdoing and unethical activity. The report raises serious questions about the Australian 2022 bid and the English bid for the 2018 World Cup and there appear blatant attempts to secure executive committee votes through lucrative gifts, event sponsorship and suspicious funds. However, on countless occasions the report states that the bids “do not compromise the integrity” or “unduly influence” the process.
3 What accusations are there against Qatar?
The Gulf state’s position as 2022 hosts has come under severe scrutiny following a string of corruption allegations. The summary report does raise significant concerns about Qatar’s bid, not least for paying $1.8m (£1.14m) to the Confederation of African Football, yet a number of specific corruption allegations outlined in this year’s Sunday Times reports are not discussed in detail. It was alleged the former Asian Football Confederation president Mohamed bin Hammam used a $5m slush fund to pay bribes and that he coordinated global trade deals for the Qatar bid. There are details payments made from Hammam to former Fifa executive committee member Jack Warner, but no mention of an alleged Caf junket in Doha.
4 What evidence is there regarding Hammam?
Eckert’s summary report states that Hammam paid $1.2m to Warner and “several improper payments” to high-ranking African officials. Fifa has always insisted Hammam’s payments were an attempt to secure the Fifa presidency rather than win the 2022 World Cup for Qatar. It does not divulge any evidence as to why Hammam’s corruption was unrelated to the Qatar bid, even though it is adamant in its stance.
5 Why are the Hammam payments to Reynald Temarii dismissed?
The report accepts that Hammam paid legal costs to Temarii, then OFC president, in order for him to appeal against Fifa’s decision to suspend him before the World Cup votes in 2010, thus meaning he could not be replaced and eliminating a potential opponent to Qatar’s bid. The report says there “is no direct link between Qatar 2022 and any payments of Mr Bin Hammam to Mr Temarii” despite it being evident he “influenced the voting process by eliminating votes for Australia and England”.
6 What could the missing Russian data have uncovered?
The report states there is “no sufficient evidence” suggesting the Russian bid committee unduly influenced the process en route to securing the 2018 World Cup. However, the Russians made only “a limited amount” of documents available to Garcia, explained by the fact the rented computers the bid team were using have since been destroyed. The Russian bid committee made an unsuccessful request to Google USA to obtain old emails. Russia insisted there was no collusion with other bid teams regarding the vote yet the report refers only to statements from the parties involved as evidence.
7 Who on the committee cooperated?
Fifa’s investigatory chamber sought to interview all 24 members of the executive committee involved in the 2018 and 2022 votes, including Amos Adamu and Temarii who were suspended before the voting. All executive members from 2010 who are still on the committee submitted answers to written questions, although two had initially refused to be interviewed. However, of the other 11 members from 2010 who no longer operate on the committee, three declined or did not respond to the request, two were unable to be contacted and another cooperated only after ethics proceedings against him were initiated. The report does not name any of the individuals in question.
8 Should evidence from whistleblowers have been discredited?
Two female whistleblowers who revealed information about the Australian and Qatari bids for 2022 are discredited in the summary report. In the case of Australia, the source in question, who claimed that money was paid to Warner and offered investigators direct access to her computer to obtain emails dating from her time in the bid team. However, the report states her evidence “did not support its [the whistleblower’s] specific recollections and allegations” and that she did not protect the integrity of Fifa’s investigation by speaking to the press. Regarding the Qatari case of Phaedra al-Majid, who retracted initial claims that executive committee members accepted bribes, the report states “serious concerns about the individual’s credibility were apparent from the outset”.
9 When does lobbying become corruption?
Despite insisting the lack of transparency regarding the 2018 and 2022 bids will not be repeated, the tone of the 42-page report is certainly not emphatic in the sense of reform. While admitting there is room for improvement, the report states “Fifa designed a bidding process for the Fifa World Cup which was well-thought, robust and professional”. It goes on to say “to assume that envelopes full of cash are given in exchange for votes is naive” and that from which point lobbying for votes becomes improper conduct is “not always clear”.
10 Why did 14 members vote for Qatar?
The intention of this report was never to argue the case for a World Cup in Qatar. However, after digesting the 42-page document, the familiar unanswered questions return. For example, what was it that compelled the 14 executive committee members to vote to stage a World Cup in a Gulf state where temperatures routinely soar above 40C and when the competition looks set to be staged in winter, during the middle of the European season?
