National Federations from around the world voted for significant changes to the governance of Modern Pentathlon at the 67th UIPM Congress (November 7-8) in Taipei.

The Congress approved a number of motions designed to modernise the way the UIPM manages Modern Pentathlon and its sub-sports, including: 

• A comprehensive review and update of the entire structure of the UIPM, including changes to simplify and reduce the number of rules on internal organisations 

• Changes to the UIPM Biathle/ Triathle competition rules 

• Adoption of a code of ethics in line with the latest IOC requirements that provides for a clear and efficient procedure in cases of litigation 

• A simplification of election rules for all elective seats within the UIPM. 

“This Congress has been a big step forward for development with new member federations joining our global community and new innovations such as Laser Run making our sport even more accessible to the world,” said UIPM president Dr Klaus Schormann.

“The National Federations are very united in focusing on sport, education and the integration of society through sport. UIPM is committed to the IOC Agenda 2020 and to supporting the protection of the clean athletes.” 

Expansion was the main theme of the UIPM Congress 2015 as Dr Klaus Schormann, UIPM President, and Shiny Fang, Secretary General, reviewed another year of relentless progress and innovation and looked ahead to a bright future. 

“With a strong vision, with a clear understanding that change is a certainty, and with a total commitment by all the family, modern pentathlon can and will be successful in retaining and gaining on its position after the 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo and, in fact, being considered as an essential part of the Olympic program and one of the International Federations that has adapted itself successfully to the challenges of these times,” said Secretary General Shiny Fang. 

“As we continuously improve our structures centrally and in every country, ‘expanding’ our reach is our real next frontier. The right choices in this area will make a huge difference in the lead up to Tokyo 2020, when the IOC will once again review the sports program, and in the long run, also beyond 2020.” 

UIPM delegates approved the membership of another six member nations: Bermuda, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Benin, Madagascar and Colombia. 

UIPM also became the first International Federation to express its backing for the Declaration of Support for the Olympic Charter, which was signed by Olympians representing all five continents at the inaugural World Olympians Forum organised by the World Olympians Association (WOA), in Moscow, Russia in October. 

The two-day conference also revealed the winners of the 2015 UIPM awards and named the venues for numerous future UIPM competitions.

Source: UIPM

With sports bodies under mounting pressure to show good governance, the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) is working with International Centre for Sport Security Europe (ICSS EUROPE) in a new partnership to help promote the highest standards of good governance, transparency and integrity in sport. 

The CGF will also work with ICSS EUROPE as it looks to help encourage the development of a global independent, neutral, multi-stakeholder integrity alliance for sport.

“As a values-driven movement connecting athletes and communities across the Commonwealth, we are proud to be a leading voice in the drive to protect, promote and safeguard sport and look forward to a successful collaboration with ICSS EUROPE and its partners,” said David Grevemberg CBE, Chief Executive of the Commonwealth Games Federation.

“Good governance and strategic partnerships are key pillars of Transformation 2022, and today’s announcement amplifies our responsibility and commitment to use Commonwealth sport to build peaceful, sustainable and prosperous communities globally.”

Athletics is one of the most popular sports at the Commonwealth Games but it is currently battling with mounting evidence of widespread organised doping. 

“The mounting and complex challenges to the integrity of sport are more apparent than ever,” said Mohammed Hanzab, Founder and President of the ICSS.

“On behalf of the ICSS, I would like to thank the Commonwealth Games Federation for its commitment to safeguarding sport and look forward to advancing efforts with them to address the very real challenges sport now faces to its integrity and credibility.”

The agreement was signed at a reception in the UK House of Commons with key stakeholders from sport, business and government.

“Recent events have shown that there is a real and urgent need for a new approach to the integrity and governance of sport. What is also clear is that this new approach must be credible, coordinated, holistic and global.” said Dr Emanuel Macedo de Medeiros, CEO of ICSS EUROPE.

“This agreement with the Commonwealth Games Federation demonstrates a growing momentum developing across a range of sectors to protect and safeguard sport integrity. It also represents a unique opportunity for ICSS EUROPE and CGF to make a real difference to sport across the Commonwealth, as well as advance ongoing discussions with key stakeholders about establishing an independent sport integrity global alliance.”

ICSS EUROPE will also independently audit the CGF’s governance model and assist with the development of a code of conduct on sports betting and integrity to maintain the Commonwealth Games body’s position as a global leader in the field of sports policy, governance and integrity.

When the International Olympic Committee (IOC) approved Agenda 2020, its “strategic roadmap for the Olympic Movement” in 2014, the most evidently urgent issue was to boost the appeal of hosting the Olympic Games. Four European cities had pulled out of bidding for the 2022 Winter Olympic Games, leaving Almaty and Beijing as candidates.

The first three of Agenda 2020’s “20+20” recommendations focussed on reforming the bidding process. These changes have been quickly implemented and the results are evident in the strong field of cities bidding for the 2024 Olympic Games. 

But Agenda 2020 is about much more than this, focusing on areas such as sustainability, blending sport and culture, launching an Olympic TV channel, engaging with communities – and an issue that has become extremely pressing for the Olympic Movement in recent months: the protection of clean athletes. 

Sir Craig Reedie, in his dual roles as Vice President of the International Olympic Committee and President of the World Anti-Doping Agency, spoke exclusively to Host City about the challenges and opportunities ahead for the Olympic Movement and how the IOC is implementing Agenda 2020.

HOST CITY: How is the IOC encouraging organising committees to boost sustainability and reduce the cost of event delivery?

Sir Craig Reedie: Sustainability covers a wide range of operations. It effectively started under Agenda 2020 with the first two or three proposals, which were to shape the bidding process as an invitation; and then evaluating the cities, assessing key opportunities and risks; reduce the cost of bidding; and then to include sustainability in all aspects of the Olympic Games and the Olympic movement. 

By framing the Games bidding process under the invitation, we get the opportunity to speak to a National Olympic Committee which wants to submit a city, and the city itself, right at the start of the programme. We can set out quite clearly that we wish them to consider a sustainability strategy, to develop a plan and to integrate and implement sustainability measures that cover the economic side, the social side and the environmental sphere in all stages of the project. And so far I have to say that seems to be working. 

The Winter Games are sometimes a bit more complicated than Summer Games, because by the very nature of Winter Games there are some indoor facilities that are very sports specific – for example long track speed skating. A lot of work needs to be done by organising committees and candidate cities to make sure that what they build is sustainable after the Games. 

For a summer Games it’s probably a little bit easier, because the facilities that have been built can frequently be used for more than one sport or more than one purpose. It’s certainly an integral part of the Agenda 2020 process and it’s underway. 

We certainly wish to reduce the cost of bidding and that is clearly underway at the moment for the 2024 bidding process. The cities have far fewer presentations to make and they work very closely with the IOC. There are three specific stages and we are just at the beginning of stage one. 

We want what is built to be sustainable; we don’t want any white elephants and we want cities to plan all that carefully all the way through.

HOST CITY: Looking ahead to Tokyo 2020 do you have confidence that their stadium will be a sustainable solution?

Sir Craig Reedie: Yes, they looked hard at the original plans for the main stadium primarily on the basis of cost and they have come back, as far as I can see, with a revised and more cost effective plan. 

It’s more sustainable and it will be finished earlier, which is a good thing so you can fit that stadium with all the bits and pieces that are necessary for an Olympic Games; you’ve got not just sport taking part there but you’ve got major ceremonies. 

Most recently there was a report from Tokyo on the whole sustainability structure and that gives me some confidence that what we wanted to happen is actually happening. 

HOST CITY: A USD 20m fund was set aside to protect clean athletes through Agenda 2020. In the light of recent revelations in athletics, is this enough or are further measures necessary?

Sir Craig Reedie: The US$20m fund is clearly working. It was split into two parts. The first was US$10m for advanced anti-doping research; it was made available to WADA provided we got governments to match the US$10m. We managed to collect about US$6.5m, so we have received or are in the process of receiving US$6.5m of the original ten. So there is a new fund of about US$13m which WADA is dealing with. 

The remaining US$3.5m, which was not matched by governments, is being invested by the IOC itself; and we clearly cooperate on the applications we get for that scientific research to make sure we don’t do the same thing. That process is working extremely well. 

The second US$10m under the heading “protecting clean athletes” wasn’t anti-doping – it was for any forms of manipulation and corruption. Clearly that’s been in the media recently with accusations about wrongdoing in tennis several years ago, and the tennis authorities are clearly looking at that. 

The IOC have invested some of that US$10m in an intelligence gathering system to which almost all the International Federations have signed up. So that process is underway as well. 

HOST CITY: It must be very costly looking into and investigating the integrity of all the Olympic Sports combined. Is working with the International Federations (IFs) a way forward there?

Sir Craig Reedie: They are an integral part of the Olympic movement. The IOC itself, the IFs and the NOCs are the three pillars of the movement, so we are structured to deal with the IFs. Certainly in the anti-doping field, from WADA’s point of view, we work closely with all the IFs. 

There is a debate at the moment about the creation of a new independent testing agency to take away the perceived conflict that IFs might have, who are supposed to develop and organise their sport, and at the same time to police their sport. The more we speak to people the more the feeling there is that this is a good idea and it might well happen. 

So this is a major project, the whole anti-doping effort is a major effort and quite clearly there are major problems in sport of manipulation and corruption and the IOC are well aware of that and effectively putting their money where their mouth is. 

HOST CITY: What’s the outlook for Russia’s involvement in Rio?

Sir Craig Reedie: Well, from the WADA perspective our job is, having removed the accreditation of the Moscow laboratory because it was criticised in the independent commission report, and having declared the Russian anti-doping agency to be non-compliant, our job is to deal with both of these situations so that the accreditation of the laboratory can be renewed and above all that the Russian anti-doping agency becomes compliant again. 

Our job is not to do this so that people can take part in the Rio Games; our job is to assist Russia in becoming compliant again. It’s other people who decide whether they go to Rio. The one national federation at the moment that is suspended is the Russian athletics federation; it’s the responsibility of the IAAF to make sure that that particular national federation is compliant with all aspects of the world anti-doping code – plus other conditions that it has applied – these will all have to purified before they can be declared compliant and by definition then available to come to the Rio Games. There is a lot of work to be done.

HOST CITY: How will the IOC itself continue to show leadership in the good governance of its own affairs?

Sir Craig Reedie: As leaders of the Olympic movement, we start with ourselves. We now produce a very comprehensive and detailed annual report which is very transparent; it tells everybody everything we are doing, it tells what people are paid, and tells everybody that we produce the accounts under the international financial reporting system – even though that’s not a legal obligation on us. 

We have imposed time limits on membership, time limits on periods that you can stay on committees. So we’ve looked very hard at our own governance. 

We also speak regularly to the associations of international federations and encourage them to do the same – and many of them do. 

As far as National Olympic Committees are concerned, they again are given guidelines – there are basic standard of good governance with which we expect them to comply. At the moment they self-monitor, but we try to ensure that across the whole movement high standards of good governance will apply.

HOST CITY: How will the Olympic movement engage with society and communities in the future?

In many cases the reform process was a serious think-tank. We did look very carefully at, and have a recommendation on, how we deal with communities. 

The first one that is being worked on is to create a virtual hub for our athletes and we are quite a long way down the line in doing that. 

We’re looking at doing the same for volunteers; we’re looking at ways we can engage the general public. Much of this is social media and how we can improve our website and how we can encourage people to keep in touch with us. We need to have a very clear policy ourselves on how we engage with young people – all of that work is underway. 

We’re also going to develop, at no little expense, a television programme called the Olympic Channel, which is going to be a digital programme in its initial form that can then spread into being a full television programme if needs be at a later date, and if countries want it. That will allow us to inform, educate, hopefully excite, entertain and amuse millions and millions of people. All of that is quite an exciting prospect as we move forward.

HOST CITY: It’s interesting that it’s going digital first, because the majority of young people are now watching more on the internet than on traditional television. 

Sir Craig Reedie: Yes, I suspect that that piece of statistical information was warmly welcomed in the offices of the digital channel in Madrid.

HOST CITY: Why is it so important to further strengthen the blending of sport and culture at the Olympic Games and in-between?

Sir Craig Reedie: At the end of the day it’s one of the absolutely defining characteristics of the Olympic movement and the Olympic Games – that there is this clear mix, this blend of sport and culture.

We’re trying to develop that; we’re looking at creating an Olympic Laurel award to celebrate any outstanding contribution to Olympism through culture, education, development and peace. We are looking to develop an Olympic House, to welcome the general public to engage in a dialogue with the Olympic movement. 

There’s a programme called artists in residence which is being examined; that’s a very specific cultural connection. We’re looking at a curators committee composed of various global cultural players.

We also try as best we can to take the Olympic Museum out on the road: for example, specific Olympic Museums created in host cities at times of the Games. I think that’s quite an exciting project; it’s one of the projects I’m trying to develop, as I think it’s part of our heritage and it’s something we should celebrate. 

HOST CITY: How is Agenda 2020 being implemented within the IOC?

Sir Craig Reedie: The whole Agenda 2020 process appears to have been warmly welcomed and we now work on it regularly at the Executive Board meetings. We look at the implementation plan to see what else we have to do; so it’s not just been a question of thinking through what we want to do, putting it down on paper and then hoping that it happens. There is a specific and detailed implementation plan that we look at on a very regular basis. 

A lot of this will fall, in several years’ time, into our new headquarters in Lausanne, so everybody working for the IOC in Lausanne works under one roof. It’s a huge investment in the Olympic movement, it’s a huge investment in sport and it’s also a huge investment in Lausanne – particularly when you look at the way we’ve made a similar investment in the complete remodelling of the Olympic Museum. So we hope to be good citizens.

The IOC Executive Board will meet in Lausanne on 1 to 3 March 2016 to discuss the implementation of Olympic Agenda 2020

I listened on recently as a member of the Scottish parliament described the transformation effect sport has had on his city, Glasgow, over the course of his relatively short adulthood. While, as a child, being subjected to pervasive messaging which labelled Scotland’s largest city ‘the sick man of Europe’, he now takes particular delight in the continued regeneration on our west coast. 

This renaissance owes much to the foresight and subsequent effort of those who have successfully secured events like the 2014 Commonwealth Games, FIG World Artistic Gymnastics Championships and 2018 European Championships for the city, amongst many others. 

Accordingly, the catalyst for this revolution of sorts has been sport. A great love of sport, has, in the words of this MSP, driven and irreversibly altered how his constituents experience the city in which they reside: be it in the evolving cityscape, the upgraded infrastructure or prevalent belief among citizens that Glasgow is, once again, a powerhouse. No longer in an industrial sense, of course, but as the eighth greatest sporting city on earth. 

As a slight aside, I would argue that these events have altered the consciousness of the Scottish nation as a whole, not only in a sporting sense. Scotland now recognises that its sons and daughters are capable of shining on the world stage and that our investment in sport has engendered invaluable social impacts, as well as numerous medals and new records. 

Aside from partisan praise for Glasgow and Scotland, this anecdote serves a very simple purpose in this wider narrative; it demonstrates the potential created by events governed well. 

And as all of those involved in the process of attempting to secure events for their respective municipalities will know, good governance starts from the initiation of the bidding process.  

Now, I cite Glasgow as a recent example in which, through rigorous care and procedural best practice, the city has reaped myriad benefits which were successfully sown many years previously. There are many others, however, that do not realise such prosperous outcomes, the reasons for which are both too numerous and complex to discuss herein. The solution for the unpredictable nature of results in an industry where, at least on the pitch/track/court, results are the only thing of any consequence, is, fortunately, less obscure. It is the more transparent governance around the process of event bidding. 

Technical evaluations are, in principle, an excellent means towards this end. However, controversy arises when they inform the choice of candidates, rather than underpin their decisions. Of course, factors not taken in to account in the process of a technical evaluation have to be considered, not least political climate. But to those unacquainted with event bidding as it presently stands, the fact that the, apparently, most accomplished bid often loses out in the final reveal, bears further scrutiny. And probably rightly so. 

It begs the question over whether there is scope for a standardised stable of tools to be provided to federations and governing bodies to help inform their decisions. Objective criteria, consistently adhered to across all sports and all major events, would help better gauge the competency of competing bids and help to eradicate votes potentially cast on instinctive or misguided judgement. 

In support of this line of argument, it has even been reasoned that completed technical evaluations should be published to encourage stricter adherence to their recommendations, or at least to elicit an explanation as to why any departure from the recommendations of a technical evaluation is selected as the chosen course. 

Leaving aside any insinuations of wrongdoing, more must also be done to encourage economic transparency in order to eradicate the ramifications experienced by host cities who fail to predict difficulties some way down the line. 

At present, a situation often arises where, in an effort to impress, candidates overpromise only to, ultimately, under-deliver. To give one example, the Olympic Games are seemingly beset by a perennial sprint finish, whereby, only aware of shortcomings all-too-late, infrastructure projects are rushed or pared-back by the host city. At best, this erodes confidence in the potentially profound social impacts mega-events should guarantee; at worst, it risks dereliction of duty and gives rise to social unrest.

For those familiar with game theory, the competitive nature of bidding must be of the greatest interest. Lacking definitive criteria to meet, cities and states must simply seek to outshine their nearest competitors. Or, more accurately, seek to outshine what capacity they imagine their nearest competitor may have. The result of this ‘blind bidding’ is a less than ideal outcome for all involved, including the winner. 

With more strongly defined and widely publicised benchmarks upon which bids are judged, one can claim with some confidence that capability and credibility, rather cash, will become the foundations upon which successful bids are constructed. The result? Greater likelihood of well-placed investment, improved legacy benefits and less empty stadia as the circus leaves town. 

While it is not for me to pass judgement on the current health of global sporting governance, I am more than willing to indicate the current circumstances, while regrettable, present an invaluable opportunity. 

In the course of numerous allegations, withdrawal of support and widespread condemnation in recent months, we have learned in no uncertain terms that the forces behind the extraordinary commercial success of sport will no longer endure dubiety. Due to the extent of its own success, all of sport, particularly its governance, is being called to account, and it must reform. 

Emboldened by the voice offered by social media and the internet age, the public can no longer be categorised as homogenous factions of brand advocates. Today, the consumer more fluidly elects those it wishes to trust, and brands with a sponsors’ stake in sport will no longer tolerate its flaws. 

That being said, it should not be forgotten that, by the same token, the consumer of today is now open to more routes of engagement than ever before thanks to those same technologies. As such, the potential is more people, more enthused by a greater diversity of sporting pursuits. For the general health of the sector, that can only be an exciting prospect. But it can only be realised through change. That change being excellent governance from the ground-up. 

And, if we agree with the assertion above that good governance is established from the outset of the bidding process, what better area for us to concentrate those initial efforts towards reform. 

This opinion piece was written by Paul Bush OBE, VisitScotland’s Director of Events and Chairman of Commonwealth Games Scotland

The International Anti-Corruption Summit, hosted by UK Prime Minister Cameron on Thursday in London, welcomed the efforts of sports organisations in the fight against corruption.

The conference issued a communiqué that said: “We welcome the work of the international sports organisations to strengthen openness and improve governance so that they meet global best practice. We urge them to achieve the highest global standards and regain public trust through a culture of good governance. We recognise the autonomy of international sports organisations conferred under national laws. We believe this must be exercised responsibly and be earned by continually demonstrating good governance in a spirit of openness.” 

The conference specifically welcomed the initiative of the IOC to launch “an International Sport Integrity Partnership in the margins of a meeting of the International Forum for Sport Integrity in Lausanne in early 2017.” 

IOC President Thomas Bach said: “We appreciate that this summit has acknowledged the efforts of the IOC and sports organisations. The IOC has all the instruments in place and the resolution to fight effectively against corruption. But like any other organisation we are not immune to wrongdoing. In such cases we have a proven record of swift action. The reforms of Olympic Agenda 2020 have strengthened our position to implement our zero tolerance policy in this respect. As welcomed by the Summit, we will take the fight against corruption further by launching the International Sports Integrity Partnership.”

The Summit coincided with confirmation from French financial prosecutors that they are investigating allegations that payments exceeding $2m connected to the Tokyo 2020 Olympic bid were made to a bank account linked to the son of former IOC member and IAAF President Lamine Diack.

IOC Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer Paquerette Girard-Zappelli spoke at the conference. In an IOC-issued statement she said: “We used this opportunity to present all the measures undertaken by the IOC in the fight against corruption. 

“Through Olympic Agenda 2020 the position of the IOC Ethics Commission has been strengthened and transparency has been increased. This includes a Consultants Register for the Olympic Games Bid Process and many other measures. 

“We have proven that we are actively fighting against corruption. For instance, the IOC took immediate action against Lamine Diack already in November 2015 when the first allegation arose against him. As a result of our action he no longer has any position in the IOC. Nevertheless, we continue to actively look into the matter and have become a civil party to the French investigation.”

IOC Member and President of the International Paralympic Committee Sir Philip Craven chaired a panel on sport at the summit. Girard-Zappelli was joined on the panel by Angel Gurria, Secretary-General of the OECD, Jaimie Fuller of Australian sportwear brand SKINS, and Isha Johansen, president of the Sierra Leone Football Association and FIFA board member.

“I have a mission and a vision, to force good governance into football. Because I believe it can help with the growth and prosperity of that nation,” said Johansen.

“Corruption is a deadly killer disease. Having lived in Sierra Leone through the ebola crisis, I know the destruction a disease can cause in a society, it can rip through it, it can kill a society.”

After the summit, Sir Philip Craven said: “Sport is under greater scrutiny than ever before and rightly so; sport is a multi-billion Euro industry that reaches and impacts billions of people around the world on a daily basis.

“There are absolutely no doubts that recent scandals involving some international sport federations have greatly tarnished the image and reputation of sport. This has led sport to quickly realise that it is not immune from being accountable for its actions, just like any other industry.

“It should not take a high profile scandal however to act as the catalyst to organisational reform. Sport organisations must be proactive in improving their athlete centred governance. They must seek out corruption and deal with it swiftly and effectively. It cannot be brushed under the carpet in the hope it will go undiscovered.

“Eliminating corruption in sport needs to be a real team effort. That is why the IPC fully supports the work of the IOC, the reforms of Olympic Agenda 2020, the launching of International Sports Integrity Partnership in early 2017 and the recommendations of the Association of Summer Olympic International Federations (ASOIF) Governance Task Force.”

The conference also dealt with issues such as corporate secrecy, government transparency, the enforcement of international anti-corruption laws, and the strengthening of international institutions. 

The summit adopted a “Global Declaration Against Corruption”, which reads: “Corruption is at the heart of so many of the world’s problems. We must overcome it if our efforts to end poverty, promote prosperity and defeat terrorism and extremism are to succeed. 

“Today’s Summit has demonstrated the deep commitment of a significant number of countries, businesses and members of civil society to work together to tackle this scourge.”

The adjudicatory chamber of the Ethics Committee chaired by Mr Hans Joachim Eckert has banned Mr Joseph S. Blatter, President of FIFA, for eight years and Mr Michel Platini, Vice-President and member of the Executive Committee of FIFA and President of UEFA, for eight years from all football-related activities (administrative, sports or any other) on a national and international level. The bans come into force immediately.

The proceedings against Mr Blatter primarily related to a payment of CHF 2,000,000 transferred in February 2011 from FIFA to Mr Platini. Mr Blatter, in his position as President of FIFA, authorised the payment to Mr Platini which had no legal basis in the written agreement signed between both officials on 25 August 1999. Neither in his written statement nor in his personal hearing was Mr Blatter able to demonstrate another legal basis for this payment. His assertion of an oral agreement was determined as not convincing and was rejected by the chamber.

The evidence available to the adjudicatory chamber in the present case was not sufficient to establish, to the extent required, that Mr Blatter sought the execution or omission of an official act from Mr Platini within the meaning of article 21 paragraph 1 of the FIFA Code of Ethics (FCE) (Bribery and corruption). However, the conduct of Mr Blatter towards Mr Platini without a legal basis constituted a breach of article 20 paragraph 1 of the FCE (Offering and accepting gifts and other benefits). Furthermore, Mr Blatter found himself in a situation of conflict of interest, despite which he continued to perform his related duties, failing to disclose said situation and the existence of personal interests linked to his prospective activities, thus violating article 19 paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the FCE (Conflicts of interest). By failing to place FIFA’s interests first and abstain from doing anything which could be contrary to FIFA’s interests, Mr Blatter violated his fiduciary duty to FIFA and breached article 15 of the FCE (Loyalty). Mr Blatter’s actions did not show commitment to an ethical attitude, failing to respect all applicable laws and regulations as well as FIFA’s regulatory framework to the extent applicable to him and demonstrating an abusive execution of his position as President of FIFA, hence violating article 13 of the FCE (General rules of conduct).

In consequence, Mr Blatter has been banned for eight years from all football related activities and fined CHF 50,000.

The investigation into the case of Mr Blatter was conducted by Mr Robert Torres, member of the investigatory chamber of the Ethics Committee. The investigation resulted in a final report which was submitted to the adjudicatory chamber on 20 November 2015. The adjudicatory chamber opened formal proceedings on 23 November 2015, and the hearing of Mr Blatter took place in Zurich on 17 December 2015.

The proceedings against Mr Platini primarily related to a payment of CHF 2,000,000 that he received in February 2011 from FIFA. The payment to Mr Platini had no legal basis in the written agreement signed between both officials on 25 August 1999. Mr Platini’s assertion of an oral agreement was determined as not convincing and was rejected by the chamber.

The evidence available to the adjudicatory chamber in the present case was not sufficient to establish, to the extent required, that Mr Platini obtained the payment for the execution or omission of an official act within the meaning of article 21 paragraph 1 of the FCE (Bribery and corruption). Nevertheless, the conduct of Mr Platini without a legal basis constituted a breach of article 20 paragraph 1 of the FCE (Offering and accepting gifts and other benefits). Furthermore, Mr Platini found himself in a situation of conflict of interest, despite which he continued to perform his related duties, failing to disclose said situation and the existence of personal interests linked to his prospective activities in violation of article 19 paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the FCE (Conflicts of interest). By failing to place FIFA’s interests first and abstain from doing anything which could be contrary to FIFA’s interests, Mr Platini also violated his fiduciary duty to FIFA and breached article 15 of the FCE (Loyalty). In addition, Mr Platini failed to act with complete credibility and integrity, showing unawareness of the importance of his duties and concomitant obligations and responsibilities. His actions did not show commitment to an ethical attitude, failing to respect all applicable laws and regulations as well as FIFA’s regulatory framework to the extent applicable to him and demonstrating an abusive execution of his position as Vice-President of FIFA and member of the FIFA Executive Committee, hence violating article 13 of the FCE (General rules of conduct).

In consequence, Mr Platini has been banned for eight years from all football related activities and fined CHF 80,000.

The investigation into the case of Mr Platini was conducted by Ms Vanessa Allard, member of the investigatory chamber of the Ethics Committee. The investigation resulted in a final report which was submitted to the adjudicatory chamber on 20 November 2015. The adjudicatory chamber opened formal proceedings on 23 November 2015, and the hearing took place in Zurich on 18 December 2015 in the presence of Mr Platini’s lawyers.

Source: FIFA

The FIFA Audit and Compliance Committee on Thursday proposed a wide-reaching reform of the organisation and its “old boys’ networks”, including a break up of its powerful Executive Committee.

A FIFA reform plan drafted by Domenico Scala, chairman of the FIFA Audit and Compliance Committee, proposes the following eight points: Enhanced and centralized integrity checks; Introduction of term limits; Direct election of FIFA Executive Members by the Congress; Disclosure of individual compensations; Increased efficiency and enhanced independence of Standing Committees; Higher standards of governance at Confederation and Member Association levels; Revised World Cup bidding rules and procedures; and Improvements regarding FIFA’s organisation and structure. 

“The greatest current risk in/for FIFA is the present institutional position and structure of the FIFA Executive Committee and the conduct of some of its members,” Scala’s report states.  

“The Executive Committee has too many powers and competences and is de facto more powerful than the Congress.” 

The “most significant single problem” of the ExCo is the misconduct of some of its members, some of whom hold “multiple functions as a member of FIFA's Executive Committee, as a member of executive bodies of Confederations and/or national associations,” the reports states. 

The report also highlighted “the existence of 'old boys' networks' along the Executive Committee - Confederations - Member Associations line (as well as within these bodies).”

“The most recent incidents and developments - especially those that occurred in May 2015 - manifested the considerable virulence of these risks.”

The solution proposed is to break the ExCo up into two entities, one responsible for strategic decisions and another for business administration. 

“The Executive Committee in its present form needs to be split into two different bodies: A Governing Board dedicated to strategic issues, and a Management Board entrusted with business management.”

Scala also recommended that FIFA must also exert higher standards of governance on Confederations and Member Association levels.

“Some Confederations and FIFA member associations have proved vulnerable when it comes to establishing and complying with governance standards. 

“Combined with the phenomenon of 'double' and 'triple heads' in particular, this constitutes an especially virulent risk for FIFA Executive Committee members, the Executive Committee and FIFA as a whole. 

“In an attempt to minimise this risk, the Confederations and the national associations - where applicable - have to be obliged to establish and comply certain minimum standards of governance.”

To hear more about the changing face of sports governance and much more, visit HOST CITY 2015, with speakers from FIFA, IOC, CGF and many more world leading events and cities.

The investigation into corruption and misconduct in and around FIFA is expanding, with further arrests on the cards, the US and Swiss Attorney Generals handling the case indicated today. 

Speaking to press in Zurich, US Attorney General Loretta Lynch said “individuals and entities” could be set to be charged simultaneously in a new phase of investigation. 

“We tend to proceed against individuals brought under one indictment together,” she said. 

The investigation, which has so far been conducted as a coordinated effort between US and Swiss authorities, is likely to expand into other nations. 

“If some ExCo members are not living in Switzerland this could make other jurisdictions think about how they could help,” said Swiss Attorney General Michael Lauber.

“We feel that we have received cooperation and collaboration from many parties... There is always the possibility that people have more information to provide,” said Lynch. 

Lauber and Lynch did not reveal the subject of new enquiries.

“I’m not going to comment on which individuals or entities will be the subject of the next round of charges… and I am not able to give you information about Mr Blatter’s travel plans,” said Lynch.  

She added that FIFA and its members face a choice between corruption and integrity as it seeks to reform. 

“FIFA are considering issues of reform and improving the sport,” she said. 

“They have a lot to consider... Individuals have a choice between the old way of corruption or moving towards integrity of the sport.” 

As an Olympic medallist, recent developments in some sports are particularly upsetting. What saddens me most as a former athlete is that they erode the trust in the clean athlete. Clean athletes who push themselves day in day out pursuing their dreams see the finger of suspicion pointing at them. This is the very worst ‘side-effect’ of doping. 

We must do everything we can to protect these millions of clean athletes around the world. For their sake and for the credibility of sports competition, they have to be protected from doping and corrupting influences. We also have to protect the credibility of sports competition from match-fixing and manipulation. The IOC has created a specific 20-million US dollar fund for the protection of clean athletes. This comes on top of overall international investments of an estimated 500-million US dollars for around 250,000 anti-doping tests a year, among other initiatives. The IOC has a zero-tolerance policy against doping and any kind of manipulation and corruption. 

Doped athletes already face a four-year ban from any kind of sports competition for their first infringement. This means an effective ban from the next edition of the Olympic Games. As a young man, I called for life bans even for the first infringement. Unfortunately, such a sanction would not be upheld by any judicial court. But what we can do is making the anti-doping system more independent from sports organisations. In this respect, the IOC took the initiative to ask the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the international authority in the fight against drugs in sport, to consider taking over testing programmes from the international sports federations. The IOC also proposed that the Court of Arbitration of Sports (CAS), the highest judicial body for the sports world, take over all sanctioning of doped athletes. 

Zero-tolerance also means all nations and all sports have to be compliant with WADA’s rules. On this front, sport requires the support of governments. Let us not forget that governments have a 50% stake in WADA. Governments need to make sure that their national anti-doping authorities are WADA-compliant. Governments also have to ensure dealers, corrupt doctors and coaches are punished with the full force of the law. 

Protecting the clean athlete goes hand in hand with ensuring that the environment in which the athletes operate is safe from corrupting influences. To fight manipulation in sport and specifically match-fixing and illegal betting, the IOC and the International Sport Federations are already working closely with police, betting operators and regulators around the world. Recognizing the international nature of organized crime, the IOC is also engaged with Interpol to safeguard the integrity of sport. 

Fighting corruption also means that good governance for sporting organisations is essential. The IOC has put the necessary measures in place since a long time. More recently, the reforms passed in Olympic Agenda 2020 exactly one year ago, ensure internationally recognized standards of governance. As a result, all our accounts are audited at a higher international financial reporting standard (IFRS) and we are publishing everything in our annual report, as is common practise in the corporate world; we have term and age limits for all IOC Members; we have a chief ethics and compliance officer, an audit committee and an independent ethics commission. We have called on and we expect all sports organisations to follow this route. All these measures and others, which are publically available, allow the IOC to distribute over 90% of our revenue – that is $3.25 million each and every day – back to athletes and world sport. 

The recent discussions on these issues show the huge significance sport has in our society. Sport has the power to make the world a better place. If these good governance measures are adopted and the zero-tolerance policies are followed by all sport organisations, there is a very bright future for sport. As Nelson Mandela said: “Sport has the power to change the world.” Yes, these are difficult times for sport. But yes, it is also an opportunity to renew the trust in this power of sport to change the world for the better.

This opinion piece by IOC President Thomas Bach is also published on www.olympic.org

The Executive Board of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) on Thursday adopted a declaration on good governance in sport in response to growing concerns of sports organisations. 

In the declaration, the IOC singled out criminal investigations into FIFA as an area of particular concern that “could affect all sport organisations” for up to five years. 

In a statement, the IOC said the Executive Board welcomed the FIFA Executive Committee’s proposals for major reforms, which include term limits. 

However, the IOC said its Executive Board “remains concerned with regard to the ongoing criminal procedures in the United States and Switzerland, which according to these authorities could last for another five years. 

“Since this could continue to overshadow the credibility of FIFA and affect all sport organisations for such a long time, the IOC EB encourages FIFA to take all necessary measures to clarify and resolve all the pending issues as soon as possible by further engaging with the relevant authorities.”

At a meeting in Lausanne, the IOC Executive Board addressed requests from “a number of sports organisations which feel affected by incidents in some sports organisations and are concerned their reputation is being tarnished by generalisation."

The IOC declaration proposes a number of measures to develop good governance in sport. “Recent incidents have shown that, in the interest of the credibility of all sports organisations immediate action to reinforce good governance is necessary,” the IOC statetment said. 

According to the declaration, the basic principles of good governance, including transparent and democratic decision making processes, financial reporting and auditing according to international standards, publication of financial reports and ethics and compliance rules, etc. will be applied during 2016.

The IOC will initiate an independent audit system of its major subventions to IFs, NOCs and Organising Committees for the Olympic Games (OCOGs) with regard to the financial as well as the good governance aspects. With regard to all other activities of IFs, NOCs and OCOGs, Recommendation 27 of Olympic Agenda 2020 should be applied as from 2016. The IOC, recognising the independence and autonomy of the IFs, appreciates their support for this initiative as expressed in the IOC EB meeting and by setting up a working group on sports governance by the Association of Summer Olympic International Federations (ASOIF).

The IOC has also has asked the International Institute for Management Development (IMD) in Lausanne and its Global Board Centre to undertake research into good governance at the IOC itself. A first assessment by IMD was presented to the Executive Board.

The IOC Executive Board also confirmed its zero tolerance policy toward doping, expressing support for the authority and autonomy of WADA while putting forward a number of proposals to the WADA working group. 

These include establishing an independent testing and results management entity, under the leadership of WADA. “Sports organisations should transfer their doping control operations to this new organisation and make the funding available initially at the level of the present investment in the fight against doping. This organisation should also co-ordinate the work of the national anti-doping agencies to ensure a streamlined, efficient and worldwide harmonised anti-doping system. Governments, which are 50 per cent partners of WADA, should support this reform alongside the sports movement, both logistically and financially,” the IOC said.

This entity should include a “professional intelligence gathering unit” to “address issues that may affect the compliance of anti-doping organisations and anti-doping laboratories accredited by WADA, at the earliest possible stage. This would help to make all such institutions compliant at all times and in such a way as to protect the clean athletes worldwide to the same level.”

The IOC declaration also determined that sanctions should be pronounced by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in a centralised way, which would make the system cost-efficient and lead to harmonisation among all sports and all countries. The current right to appeal such sanctions to a different chamber of the CAS would be fully upheld and guaranteed, the IOC said.

The IOC is aiming to have an independent anti-doping system in place from the 2018 Winter Olympic Games in Pyeongchang.