Fifa World Cup ethics report: all the reaction as it happened

I think the journos covering the story have started to go stir crazy – can’t say I blame them.

Scott Forbes writes with a Baldrick-esque cunning plan: “As Michael Garcia, the lawyer responsible for the report is a US citizen, a partner within Kirkland Ellis LLP and bound by US and New York State law ... can a freedom of information request to get a copy of the report be made?”

I suspect not – since the report was for a Switzerland-based organisation, but by all means give it a go.

Mind addled by all these pesky words on a screen – take a look at this video of Conservative MP Damian Collins’ response to the report.

The French newspaper has not gone big on the story, and certainly not with the same sentiment as British publications – the headline is “No suspicion on Qatar”.

Marca, in Spain, have the story way down page with the headline “The Russia 2018 and Qatar 2022 election were clean” which doesn’t quite reflect what’s happening. Expect Spanish minds to be more focussed if any moves are made regarding their non-compliance with the investigation.

Bild lead with Garcia’s intervention and the story tops the New York Times sport section.

A mixed bag which indicates just how hard it would be for the FA to build any kind of anti-Fifa alliance, let alone a breakaway.

Take a listen to Football Weekly Extra where AC Jimbo, Barry Glendenning, Iain Macintosh and Simon Burnton hopefully manage to avoid saying anything libellous when they talk about the great Fifa World Cup whitewash.

Want to find out more about the man at the centre of the Fifa storm, investigator Michael Garcia? Well take a look at our profile.

Garcia’s tenure as the so-called “Sheriff of Wall Street” would come in for criticism over his allegedly relaxed attitude towards regulation of the financial services industry.

In contrast, Garcia proved persistent in his pursuit of New York’s Democratic governor Eliot Spitzer, who was ultimately forced to resign in March 2008 as a result of a prostitution scandal ...

Here’s the full text on that CNN report that the FBI is stepping up their investigation into Fifa corruption.

FBI agents based in New York are moving ahead with their 3-year-old investigation, which will likely benefit from the findings of a former U.S. prosecutor, Michael Garcia, who was hired by FIFA to do an internal probe. The FBI plans to seek access to Garcia’s report, which FIFA hasn’t yet release ...

David Conn’s view of the whole sorry affair is now up on the site, I urge you to take a look:

[Garcia’s intervention] was dramatic, edging again into Zurich farce, but no great surprise, because while Fifa had congratulated itself with characteristic smugness, saying Garcia’s report cleared its integrity and should constitute closure, even the 42-page summary of the report screams the opposite ...

Simon Johnson has finished talking to Sky News now. He said that he found it peculiar that England were singled out for distorting the bidding process by spending $50,000 on a gala dinner, while Qatar spent £1.2m sponsoring a confederation, yet that was believed to have had no impact.

He believes it is all an attempt by Fifa to shift the attention away from the Qatar bid for 2022 and on to England’s bid.

“We were open and transparent throughout the bidding process, disclosing what were doing throughout to Fifa,” said Johnson. “Others did not. Bin Hammam did not co-operate at all. If the investigator does not accept the recommendations of this report why should we?”

He refused to comment on what was and was not an acceptable gift during the bidding process, instead choosing to contrast the England bid’s openness and honesty with the destruction of evidence by others involved. Who could he be referring to?

Apparently the Appeals Committee page has been restored to the internet – but just in case Darragh has emailed with a cached link should it go dark again.

Our story about Russia, destroyed computers and missing emails is now up.

The man who led Russia’s winning bid for the 2018 World Cup has denied deliberately obstructing Fifa’s investigation into alleged corruption during the bid process after it emerged evidence had been destroyed ...

Breaking: Fifa has taken down the link to the Appeal Committee. (Thanks Martin Smith).

Rudy Hulsman (presumably from Belgium or Holland) writes:

“As the Dutch/Belgian bid was the only one to get a categorical clean bill of health in the report, we should get the hosting, right?”

That seems perfectly fair to me.

I hereby award the 2018 and 2022 World Cups to Belgium and Holland. Nice easy commute from the UK too.

Something to reassure you ahead of Michael Garcia’s appeal.

The Fifa Appeals Committee he will be appealing to is appointed by the Fifa Executive Committee – that’s the same Executive Committee which serious allegations have be levelled against in the bidding process. Sure to be impartial then.

Here’s a more detailed version of those Greg Dyke quotes from 12.38:

““Questions still need to be answered. If you read that report it says all the bids were assessed. The one that was the highest risk was Qatar and they won, and it doesn’t take us any further forward on why they won.

“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.”

Asked if the FA had damaged the image of FIFA, Dyke added: “I think it’s quite hard to damage the image of FIFA. What it tells you is that the people who co-operated the most got criticised and those who didn’t co-operate at all didn’t get anything which seems odd by anybody’s standards.

“As for the criticism of the English bid, obviously I wasn’t involved, but it’s all based on information that we gave to them and that the FA had cleared with the FIFA executives in advance.”

Asked about Russia failing to provide emails on the basis their leased computers had since been destroyed, Dyke said: “Those who co-operated the most seemed to be the ones that gave them the information by which they were then criticised, like the FA. Others, who didn’t co-operate, didn’t get criticised at all. Well, there’s a surprise.”

Is this going to be Fifa’s defence against Garcia?

Matt Scott, once of this parish, and Heidi Blake of the Sunday Times have this to say on Garcia’s possible appeal:

Worth noting that the report goes through each bid one-by-one - although a single bid is conspicuous by its absence.

Spain/Portugal’s bid for 2018 is left out - but that’s not because they have done nothing wrong ...

The report says: “With regard to one specific bid team however, the report noted that the relevant federation was particularly un-cooperative in responding to the investigatory chamber’s requests.”

Expect the severest penalty (€10,000 fine anyone?) to be handed out to those two FAs.

Labour have had their say – beating the government to it (I’m not counting Nick Clegg’s intervention, see 10.24).

“Fifa has no choice but to publish Garcia report in full, if it expects anyone to believe their claims there has been no cover up.”

Here it is for those interested:

Four years after the final whistle was blown at Soccer City in Johannesburg, FIFA’s pledge to ensure that South Africans would be long-term recipients of the financial rewards of the 2010 FIFA World Cup™ has become a reality ...

Bruce Cooper emails to demand direct action from all you lazy layabouts: “It is only with global pressure that Fifa will change. The Guardian’s global ‎reach should be used to encourage all readers to tweet, email and call their national associations to demand that the full report is release. This Canadian will be.”

It is a demand supported by Jim Boyce, Fifa vice-president, who probably has more sway than the average Guardian reader.

“In view of the fact Michael Garcia has now stated he is not happy with the findings and is to appeal, I await with interest to see what further disclosures will be made,” Boyce told PA.

“I have always said as much of the report as it is legally possible to publish should be made public.”

Finally, someone comes out to defend poor, put upon Qatar.

Step forward Asian Football Confederation president Sheikh Salman Bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa.

He said: “I am satisfied that Qatar has been absolved of any misconduct in their bid for the 2022 World Cup.

“The AFC has always stood by Qatar as we defend their right to host the 2022 World Cup, and this finding reaffirms our belief and support for the country. We would now be able to move on and work with Qatar to ensure that we deliver the best World Cup that Asia can offer.

“There are matters to be ironed out of course including the timing of the World Cup, but we are committed to get it done. I would also like to call upon all Asian nations to continue showing support for Qatar as we have been doing since they won the bid.

“This is an important moment for Asia, and we have a wonderful opportunity to create history.”

Owen Gibson’s story on Michael Garcia’s intervention is now up:

But when German judge Hans-Joachim Eckert today closed the investigation after ruling that there was not enough evidence to justify re-opening the process, a furious Garcia said the summary he had published did not reflect his findings ...

Here’s a link to the members of the Appeal committee that will adjudicate on Michael Garcia’s claims.

Everyone clamouring for the full report to be released now. It’s probably worth keeping in mind that that would surely result in lawsuits all round.

Would it not be better if Fifa just submitted itself to a proper investigation by a police force, with all the requisite powers to demand documents, testimony, mysteriously disappeared Russian emails? Does this not fall under the jurisdiction of some official body other than Fifa itself?

Will Fifa be able to resist publishing the Garcia report in full now?

Is the appeal process (an internal appeal process) really credible?

If Garcia disagrees with the appeal will he just go ahead and leak his report?

This will run and run.

We should have Garcia’s full statement soon, but some seem to be enjoying the farce.

Lord Triesman, former FA chairman, head of the 2018 bid and vociferous Fifa critic, refused to cooperate with the investigation according to the report.

“He refused to provide evidence due to an ongoing libel lawsuit.”

Triesman has used Parliamentary privilege to make accusations against Executive Committee members in relation to the bidding process, which is what triggered the lawsuit.

James Masters has some quotes from Alexei Sorokin, the Director General of the Russia 2018 bid. He says: “We’re confident our application was transparent.”

Of course, that doesn’t answer my earlier question as to why they are suddenly unable to access their Gmail accounts. Did the Russian team not realise that Gmail is not tied to a computer?

One suspects it may have more to do with the point that Michael Hershman made – that the head of the investigation, Michael Garcia, could not force anyone to provide emails.

Michael Hershman, member of Fifa’s Independent Governance Committee has been speaking about the report on Sky Sports News:

“The report brings to some conclusion the allegations ...

“But the investigation was limited by authority. It did not have subpoena power. Michael Garcia couldn’t force anyone to speak to him or provide records, bank records or emails. He relied on voluntary cooperation ... A number of key officials didn’t cooperate. [But] at least fifa now has independent people looking at the facts.

“Stuff that wasn’t exposed may one day be exposed ... [But] from an internal standpoint the investigation is now closed. Law enforcement may continue investigations, there is an ongoing FBI investigation into Chuck Blazer.

“There have already been some changes to Fifa - the hosts will now be chosen by the entire congress, not just the 23 executive committee members. They will be recommending three hosts to the congress. This report suggests that host committee members be prohibited from visiting executive committee members and host cities.”

Tariq Panja also points out that the South American committee members have not got a mention in the report – yet two of them, former Fifa president Joao Havelange and Ricardo Teixeira, former head of the Brazilian football federation, have both stood down since the bidding process.

The reason? Taking bribes from International Sport and Leisure, the company that handled TV rights negotiations for the World Cup and went bust in 2001, still owing millions of pounds to creditors.

So why is it that the attention to detail and evidence against the FA appears to be so much more than in the other segments?

Is this an example of English fair play at work - handing over all the evidence when asked, as opposed to the Russian response that the emails are now unreachable, or the Qataris distancing themselves from Bin Hammam?

David Conn is not having any of this “woe is me” stuff though. He correctly points out that whatever you think of the rest of the report, whitewash or not, there’s no escaping the fact that the FA has serious questions to answer.

Joss Ealey responds (re: 10.52):

“I propose then we leave with the US and start our own Soccerball World Series.”

Certainly leading US soccerball writer, Grant Wahl, is on England’s side.

And the Guardian’s Head of Sport has had his say:

Owen Gibson’s filed on the Fifa report – I’m sure he’s done a better job than me of making it all comprehensible.

Qatar has been cleared to host the 2022 World Cup after Fifa’s ethics committee ruled that any breaches of the rules were only of “very limited scope” and closed its investigation into the controversial bidding process ...

The problem is it seems to have been a bit more than merely grovelling – which rather knocks the FA off the high road when it comes to criticising the seriously questionable behaviour of others.

Joss Ealey writes: “I think that this report clearly has shown the time has come for the FA not just to criticise Fifa, but to leave it. Undoubtedly should Damian Collins proceed with trying to get the SFO to investigate FIFA, which I completely agree with, we will be close to being expelled anyway. Time to jump before we are pushed.”

The one slight problem with that is that the FA still has a 90,000 seat stadium to pay-off, and without competitive England fixtures to fill it there would be a big financial black hole. And we all know, ultimately, money talks. It would need a whole confederation to depart to make the move viable – lucky our relationship with the rest of Europe is so chummy at the moment.

The section concerning England’s 2018 bid is one of the longest in the report.

It focuses on the FA’s attempts to woo Jack Warner - including sponsoring a gala dinner for the Caribbean Football Union, to the tune of $55,000. This “damaged the integrity of the bidding process” according to the report – although it does conceded “such damage was of limited extent”. Which seems obvious, since the FA’s bid was spectacularly unsuccessful.

There were also dealing with Reynald Temarii (see 10.40) – with the OFC offered “preferential treatment in terms of allocating football development funds”.

Most damning perhaps is that four Executive Committee members approached the FA to ask for favours – and England 2018 accommodate these requests for “at least two” of those members. The report urges the Investigatory Chamber to “take appropriate steps if it deems such measures appropriate and feasible”.

Sure to have Sepp Blatter doing a victory jig.

Back to Bin Hammam, the report does say that he made payments to Reynald Temarii, OFC President and Fifa Executive Committee member.

Temarii had been suspended for a breach of the Ethics code, but Bin Hammam encouraged, and paid for his appeal – an appeal which meant that the OFC could not replace Temarii for the World Cup vote. The OFC was planning to support Qatari rivals – and this was behind Bin Hammam’s offer of aid, the report says.

However, it goes on to say “there was no direct link between Qatar 2022 and any payments of Mr Bin Hammam ... it should be noted the difference it would have made if Mr Temarii would have participated in the vote would not have been significant.”

Here’s a link to the full summary.

The Conservative MP Damian Collins, who in 2011 used Parliamentary privilege to make allegations that bribes helped secure Qatar the tournament, certainly doesn’t seem prepared to let sleeping dogs lie ...

Nick Clegg has also chimed in too – on his Call Clegg phone-in he said that the report was “very surprising indeed, to put it mildly”.

Is this really the end of it? Fifa certainly seems to think so:

Fifa welcomes the fact that a degree of closure has been reached … As such, Fifa looks forward to continuing the preparations for Russia 2018 and Qatar 2022, which are already well underway.

Seems pretty definitive - and yet Mohamed Bin Hammam was never spoken to by the investigation. This is Bin Hammam the Qatari former Fifa executive committee member who was banned for life by Fifa, and is believed to have offered sweeteners and payments to Jack Warner (more on him later).

The report says Bin Hammam was “distant” from the Qatar bid, which was cleared of any wrong beyond that of ““of very limited scope”.

More from the Russian FA on Sky Sports News - “There were no deleted emails, we rented the equipment ... so other people used it. Whatever we could supply we did, but four years have passed since then - there’s no implication. Certain pieces you just forget.”

Do you think they got their PCs from Rumbelows?

A bit of reaction from Twitter:

Russia’s reason for failing to provide all their bid-related documentation has the smack of “I left my homework on the bus”. The Russian FA failed to provide copies of all their emails from the bid organisation on the basis that their computer equipment has since been scrapped.

Here’s Fifa’s full statement on the ethics committee report:

In reaction to Thursday’s statement by the chairman of the adjudicatory chamber of the independent Ethics Committee, FIFA has issued the following statement:

FIFA would firstly like to acknowledge the efforts made by the investigatory chamber and the adjudicatory chamber in the extensive work undertaken to date, as well as recognise the cooperation of all those witnesses who have so far assisted the independent Ethics Committee in establishing the facts in this case.

FIFA welcomes the fact that a degree of closure has been reached with the chairman of the adjudicatory chamber stating today that “the evaluation of the 2018/2022 FIFA World Cups™ bidding process is closed for the FIFA Ethics Committee”. This comes after the chairman stated that “as regards the procedural framework for conducting bidding procedures related to awarding the hosts of the final competitions of FIFA World Cups™, the Investigatory Chamber of the FIFA Ethics Committee did not find any violations or breaches of the relevant rules and regulations”.

As such, FIFA looks forward to continuing the preparations for Russia 2018 and Qatar 2022, which are already well underway.

For the sake of further closure, FIFA supports the independent Ethics Committee with respect to their preparedness to potentially open future cases against officials based on the information obtained during this investigation.

Finally, FIFA acknowledges the recommendations mentioned in the statement with regard to improving the bidding process for future FIFA World Cups, but also notes the comments of the chairman of the adjudicatory chamber regarding the bidding process for the 2018/2022 FIFA World Cups as “well-thought, robust and professional”.

FIFA has already revised the host selection process for the FIFA World Cup as part of the 2011-2013 governance reform process, with the decision to be made in future by the FIFA Congress instead of the Executive Committee, while discussions for potential additional amendments are ongoing as part of an internal review for the 2026 FIFA World Cup bidding process. The recommendations of the Ethics Committee will be carefully considered and assessed as part of this ongoing review.

Good morning. The key news so far:

• Fifa’s ethics investigator has not uncovered any evidence that would justify stripping Qatar of the 2022 World Cup – but has heavily criticised the England 2018 bid team’s conduct.
• England have been castigated by the Fifa report into the bidding process for the next two World Cups, the investigation finding that their attempts to woo the disgraced former Fifa vice-president Jack Warner in their 2018 bid “violated bidding rules” and included securing a job in the UK for a family friend of the controversial football figure.