Presidents of the member associations of FIFA, Officials and members of these associations, dear football friends,

The year 2013 has just begun, and so has the football season in those countries that play their competitions in calendar years. With the Congress due to be held in Mauritius in May, this year will prove to be decisive for the future of FIFA. We have, for the most part, already debated the matter of reforming FIFA and, in my opinion, we should now await the outcome of the dialogue with your member associations before returning to this crucial topic after the Congress.

The recent FIFA Strategic Committee meeting and the next meeting of the FIFA Executive Committee to be held in Zurich on 20 and 21 March now give us the opportunity to discuss football.

1)     – DEVELOPMENT : DO BETTER, DO MORE AND TAKE ACTION IN NEW AREAS

Until the 1974 election, the only – and rare – development activities undertaken by FIFA were in connection with refereeing. It was not until the Brazilian, Dr João Havelange, took over the helm of FIFA, supported in his role by the current President, that structured development programmes were put in place in answer to a basic need and to make football truly universal! From 1974 until 1998, the budget allocated for development was slightly more than one million US dollars per year. Around the turn of the century, thanks to the Goal project initiated by Mr Blatter, the FAP programmes and “Win in…” projects, it had rocketed to the current amount of more than one third of FIFA’s global budget.

Although a great deal has since been accomplished (headquarters, technical centres, synthetic football pitches, a panoply of courses etc.), it is nonetheless relevant to examine the question of the development of football.

1.1) – Rationalise multi-layered programmes

Nowadays, fortunately, all kinds of organisations are involved in development, claiming even greater objectives. FIFA’s programmes occupy the pinnacle. Then there are those of the confederations, conducted on their own territory with financial help from FIFA. One of these confederations recently reprised methods and activitities undertaken outside its own territory in the 1990s that are reminiscent of UEFA’s Meridian programme, held parallel to – to compete with? – those of FIFA. Some generous associations – unfortunately few – have also set up aid programmes. Finally, a few western European professional leagues flaunt shows of “cooperation”, whereas, on closer inspection, they boil down to marketing campaigns designed to promote self-image rather than genuine development programmes.

The result is multiple organisational costs (travel, experts’ fees) with masses of uncoordinated programmes. The funds available are sprinkled around different activities, watering down the effect for want of acquiring enough critical financial mass. The same applies to campaigns to combat racism and to promote “social responsibility”, with jaded slogans (Kick something out, For something, etc.) and acronyms intended to “make sense” but hardly disguising the questions on their usefulness and their true long-term impact.

Just as with the multi-layered cream slice, everything has piled up so, as I see it, attention should primarily focus on content and style. Firstly, FIFA has a statutory objective to develop football around the world (article 2.a), and its direct or indirect entities have a statutory obligation to coordinate their own development programmes in cooperation with FIFA (article 13.1.a for member associations, via the obligation to respect its decisions, and article 20.3.m for the confederations).

Apart from the legal aspect, it will prove indispensable (i) – to rationalise for the sake of efficiency, (ii) – to re-allocate the means available in order to avoid duplicating organisational costs and to release more funds for more visible results on the football pitch and (iii) – to reduce multiple parallel programmes that are often motivated by personal or institutional politics.

It was with this in mind that I suggested the formation of a “World Council for Football Development” to be based at FIFA, the organisation best equipped and most able to understand the universal vision of football. This Council would bring together the organisers of the relevant competitions (confederations, associations, leagues) and representatives of the recipients in order to define the strategy and development programmes, granting decision-making and supervisory powers to those taking part. Similarly, I think consideration should be given to the establishment of a “global fund”, managed by the World Council, with contributions based on a percentage of television rights sold internationally, with a country-by-country “return”  as a means of “compensation” and boost to local football.

1.2) – Build more football pitches

Huge progress has been made as part of “Win in Africa with Africa” (53 pitches, the most recent being in Mogadishu), in India and in Palestine, since synthetic turf was improved and accepted in competition regulations and countless natural turf pitches were installed all around the world as part of Goal.

This is, of course, laudable progress but only a drop in the ocean compared to the needs. Take, for example, the Democratic Republic of Congo, an enormous country with vibrant football, where FIFA has already built three synthetic pitches (in two stadiums in Kinshasa and Lubumbashi, and one at the association’s technical centre) in addition to the one built in the capital of Katanga province by TP Mazembe. But the needs are so great that we must do more and better. The poor state of the pitches in some provincial towns (Mbuji-Mayi, Bukavu, etc.) where the professional league plays would justify the construction of yet another five by FIFA – and very soon.

The same can be said for 180 associations of the total 209, as the lack of pitches is evident practically everywhere.

1.3) – Define a programme for clubs

Football clubs are the nucleus of our sport. No club, no team. No club, no competitions. No club, no associations, and ultimately no FIFA. The future of football, the development of young players and consequently the success of national teams all depend on clubs.

Over the past 15 years, energy was focused on building a “home of football” for each association. Those of you who were present at the time will remember the red brick offered to everyone at the Extraordinary Congress in Los Angeles in 1999 and the brick topped with a blue roof at the Marrakech Congress in 2005. Today, the result is reflected in the associations’ headquarters and technical centres, etc., but much remains to be done for the associations.

An initial professionalisation programme of the African championships was launched for the clubs in 2006 through “Win in Africa with Africa”. The same concept was then extended to India in 2008. But it has proved insufficient because the economic obstacles, the widening gap in inequality of revenue and ultimately the negligible impact of the so-called “solidarity” mechanisms in redistributing revenue from club competitions are threatening a lrage number of the first-division clubs among the 209 associations. And on every continent!

Of the total number of approximately 2,500 first-division clubs around the world, how many are, at best, in a precarious situation and, at worst, in dire straits, from bankrupt Deportivo La Coruña in Spain to Minyor Pernik in Bulgaria, which is losing players because it cannot pay their salaries? Action should therefore be taken to keep alive the vital football and social network that was set up by our clubs.

1.4) – Generate additional revenue

Many of our competitions and clubs are struggling because, unless they are given television exposure, it is hard for them to attract financial partners and/or to increase the value of the contracts with partners already supporting football. A kind of vicious circle in the form of a “scissors crisis” has emerged in many countries where local football is rarely broadcast on television, creating a ceiling for resources at a time when foreign – that is, European – football is granted more exposure, thus deflecting more and more financial receipts from local football.

Hope is, however, eternal. In fact, since the advent of television to football in the 1970s, these rights have been sold on a territorial basis along rigid national border lines. The arrival of satellite technology created the first crack in this system but we can already see that the convergence of television and the internet (a screen with dual use) with so-called “intelligent” screens, combined with improvements in “streaming” techniques, will transform this territorial straitjacket through channels broadcast via the internet and up-and-coming stakeholders (Google TV, Apple TV etc.).

This transformation, in my opinion, opens up a new vista as well as opportunities to broadcast competitions on the internet inside and outside the competition’s country, reaching a wider audience than competitions that are currently underexposed. The relentless evolution of new technology will tell us about these new opportunities.

1.5) – Globalise expertise

In 1975, President Blatter, who was Technical Director of FIFA at the time, devised the football pyramid, populated with, from the base upwards, players, clubs, associations and FIFA; the associations joined forces for continental club competitions while the clubs engaged at national level to set up national leagues. This setup still forms the backbone of football.

But many development programmes and diplomas (for coaches, for instance) on our lists of experts and instructors are split into continent and region, etc., whereas the world has grown smaller. Let us consider, at FIFA level, equivalent values and mutual recognition and – why not? – a global licence for coaches.

In any case, the sound management of FIFA since 1998 has obviously generated substantial financial reserves (approximately USD 1.5 billion). And without losing sight of the principles of prudence in an unstable world (for instance, the need to self-insure the World Cup), the question still remains whether it would be possible to inject part of these reserves into new development programmes!

2)     – REFEREEING: SUPPORT REFEREES IN EVERY POSSIBLE WAY

Apart from the question of “triple punishment” in the case of the “last defender” foul in the penalty area (red card, penalty and suspension from at least one match), which must be abolished as quickly as possible, every possible help must be given to the referees.

2.1) – Restrict protests

More often than ever, matches are being marred by unacceptable scenes of players surrounding and haranguing the referee and yelling their disapproval after or requesting a red or yellow card or a penalty, at the same time giving younger players a bad example. Why do we therefore not consider adopting a rule similar to one in rugby, allowing only the captain to approach the referee? And another rule allowing the ball to be placed 10 yards farther forward whenever the decision for a free kick is disputed? Players would automatically show greater respect for the referee’s authority and the image of football would obviously improve.

2.2) – Increase the range of cards

When Ken Aston, the English international referee in charge of refereeing at the 1966 World Cup, first suggested the use of red and yellow cards after gazing at traffic lights in Kensington High Street on the way from Wembley Stadium to FA headquarters at Lancaster Gate, he had overlooked the colour orange!

Joking aside, why not investigate again a new, intermediate solution between “yellow” and “red” in football? The intense range of emotions felt during play and the number of “in-between” fouls committed in the heat of the moment (for example, stripping off the jersey after scoring a goal) leave referees with no choice but to send the player off – and face the consequences on the balance of a game.

As with traffic signals, an orange card would give referees an additional, intermediate means to calm down a situation, by excluding a player for two to three minutes (not too long to prevent shivering but long enough to recover composure), thus avoiding the need to expel him altogether and accusations of having distorted the result.

2.3) – Consider the role of technology without arbitrary rejection

The subect of the debate is well known. Opponents fear the death knell of romanticised football, the commercialisation of the game, a challenge to the universal nature of the Laws etc. Those in favour of limited use approve only of goal-line technology.

But it is imperative to recognise that technological evolution is inevitable and it is an illusion to think that it can be disregarded in football.

Some forty years ago, fans went to the stadium armed with a radio so that they could listen to the live commentary at the same time. This habit has now practically died out.

Imagine the situation where a goal has been scored but disallowed because of offside. Guests in the VIP box can usually watch a television screen that flashes the offside line instantly. Since the introduction of hospitality lounges about fifteen years ago, privileged spectators following the match have also had access to this offside line. We are on the brink of an era that will overtake us more suddenly than we realise, in which half of the fans in the stadium will flip open their smartphone to check offside, thanks to streaming.

The ONLY people without this device are the main referee and his assistants, putting them in the unpleasant position of having to take split-second decisions in games played at an ever increasing pace!

Such technology will, of course, have to be introduced in measured way and be limited to dead-ball situations (goal scored but disallowed because of offside, sending a player off, protests about the location in the penalty area after a foul has been punished with a penalty). This debate must be conducted without resorting to any ostrich tactics or dogma. The goal that Lampard scored but that was disallowed in the Germany v. England game in 2010 and the Ukrainian equaliser that referee Istvan Vad overlooked in the match against England during Euro 2012 were the point of no return.

3)     – TRAINING: GIVE YOUNG PLAYERS EVEN MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PLAY

On 25 November last year – the thirteenth day of the Spanish league – Barcelona fielded eleven recruits from their youth academy for 62 minutes of their game against Levante, taking an 11-point lead over their Real Madrid rivals. That same evening, the headlines in the newspapers announced: “11 points with 11 from the Masia”!

This is only an anecdote but it is very revealing about the superficial practice in our sport of using cheque books rather than investing in the long-term, unsung development of young players – one’s own players – and in creating one’s own playing identity. I think it is also a vision that FIFA should encourage and stimulate, if necessary, by regulation, for the sake of the sporting and financial health of clubs , with a view to providing national teams with a greater pool of players eligible to play under their own colours.

3.1) – Find the right formula

This question applies to every aspect of balancing club interests against those of national teams. Some countries and some competitions have imposed limits to ensure the inclusion of eligible local players. UEFA has established the rule for “home-grown players” and AFC demands the minimum inclusion of seven local players for its Champions League. The Russian association is currently debating how the matter should be regulated. Tanzania has imposed the 8+3 rule. The Luxembourg championship is contested with at least seven players who signed their first player’s licence in Luxembourg. The Saudi championship rules that goalkeepers must be eligible.

A few years ago, the FIFA President initiated the debate regarding the 6+5 concept, which was then confirmed by the FIFA Congress. But since then internal struggles in the pyramid of football and “political” alliances with institutions in Brussels have not only torpedoed the project but have also prevented a true debate on the substance and implementation of the proposal (a modified 6+5, gradual introduction, other incentives etc.).

But the debate is still as relevant today. Either the rules are ineffective or they have been circumvented (for example by naturalising players), or clubs abuse the lack of truly restrictive rules in order to deprive other clubs of their young players. Moreover, statistics published in January 2013 by the Neuchatel-based International Centre for Sports Studies show that in 2012 the proportion of foreign players reached a record level in 31 leading European leagues, with on average at least one third of expatriates. The result is that the proportion of players developed in clubs has never been so low while, at the same time, the best non-European players gravitate towards Europe, depriving non-European leagues of their talents and undermining their local championships in home countries!

It is time to raise the matter again

3.2) – Create new competitions

Some competitions for “reserve” teams and young players at clubs already exist in several countries (for example the Gambardella in France) and, in other countries, these teams can play in normal competitions (up to the second division in Spain, in Cup competitions in other countries, up to the 4^th level in France).

South America, with customary vision, (the first continental competition for national teams, Copa America, was created way back in 1916), and CONMEBOL established a Copa Libertadores for the under-20s three years ago to strengthen and support development in their clubs. In Europe a private initiative, Next Gen, devised in 2011, has set up a first-rate tournament involving “reserves” from leading western European clubs, which UEFA, rightly, is hoping to integrate in its competitions pyramid.

Africa and CAF, equally visionary, set up an African Nations Championship in 2009, allowing only players who were developing in local competitions to compete.

In short, FIFA should take the initiative and consider:

• setting up a Club World Championship for under-21s, initially by organising a final among those continents that can take part while helping the remaining confederations;
• supporting the efforts of a “local Copa America” involving local players, as in the case of the African Nations Championship, to be held every four years in the middle of the “big” Copa America.
• instituting (see above) an aid programme in club training centres in the least privileged countries.

3.3) – Support clubs to develop young players

Support for developing young players in and by the clubs will be paramount under an aid programme for clubs, to be set up with the cooperation of member associations. Consideration would have to be given to extending technical expertise, equipment, help with national youth competitions, help with national youth academies in associations situated in countries where clubs do not possess the means to set up their own training centre.

With this objective in mind, it would be possible also to consider so-called “innovative” funding, which is currently directed towards sectors such as health, in an effort to release additional resources. A levy of a percentage to be defined on the amount of international transfers could be put in place to support development in clubs, especially the least privileged.

4)     – CLUBS AND PLAYERS: BE ATTENTIVE TO EVERYONE, FIND DURABLE SOLUTIONS AND REMEDY EXCESSES

In view of the increasing inequality as a result of the economic crisis affecting several countries and their associations and competitions, compounded by rampant globalisation, the situation in football is riven with growing division – as much in the leagues and clubs as among players – between an extremely privileged minority with burgeoning revenues despite the crisis and the large majority of stakeholders in football who are burdened with sports and financial difficulties (member associations, bankrupt clubs, leagues and competitions with stagnating resources, unpaid players, unemployment etc.).

In this regard, FIFA, in its role as guardian of the regulations that organise football (transfers, protection of young players, agents, standard regulations for club licences approved at the 2007 Congress etc.), is obliged to take action and intervene, in several directions.

4.1) – Listen to every concern and understand every situation

As for players, FIFPro, founded in 1965 by representatives from only five countries (England, Spain, France, the Netherlands and Italy) has a membership today of almost 60,000 professionnals from 49 countries. Much still needs to be done to achieve greater inclusion but FIFPro, like FIFA, embodies and champions a truly global vision of football.

If only that could be said of the clubs! Only about 200 clubs in Europe have created a representational base – the European Club Association – which is more élitist than democratic and does not include every European club. What is more, the voice and interests of clubs from other continents are overheard because they are not represented – although they ought to be! The same applies to the leagues, with only the most “powerful” making themselves heard, despite the creation of a global league association.

This Eurocentralisation must be offset by the creation of a kind of FIF Clubs/Leagues that will become FIFA’s natural interlocutor for any matter relating to club football.

4.2) – Negotiate and sign a global collective convention between players and clubs

Because the problems affecting football are global, only global solutions will be able to remedy them. In 2006, a historic agreement between FIFA and FIFPro was signed at Camp Nou in Barcelona, in the presence of Samuel Eto’o and Lilian Thuram. This agreement laid down the basis for such a convention on all aspects of football but, as representatives of the clubs/leagues – in other words, the employers in professional football – were absent, it was incomplete.

Such a global convention would serve as an additional pillar bolstering FIFA’s regulations with regard to problems concerning transfers, the protection of development, minor players, access to sports justice etc.

4.3) – Apply existing texts more effectively

The scope of FIFA regulations is wide, covering practically every relevant topic, but the manner in which they are applied must be strengthened. I would like to point out two examples.

Firstly, FIFA’s regulations provide for substantial financial amounts to clubs that develop players. FIFA negotiated these regulations via resolution with the European Commission in 2000 and 2001. They stipulate training compensation and a solidarity mechanism of 5% on a player’s successive international transfers. But how many of the clubs in less privileged countries have these rights honoured? They are required to resort to legal action to have their grievances heard at FIFA in the hope of receiving the amounts due. In the final analysis, only a minority of these clubs are paid their transfer dues. Moreover, some clubs are punished twice because, firstly, they do not have contracts binding the players to them and, secondly, they do not have the means to stand up for themselves, as in the case of Mathare United in Kenya where players are “snatched” despite being the product of local development (Mathare Youth SA).

To counteract this trend, FIFA should establish a “global chamber for financial compensation of transfers”, originally envisaged in the “transfer matching system”, itself designed to distribute solidarity compensation.

Secondly, the players’ situation requires a more proactive approach. In 2006, “minimum contract clauses” came into force to provide better protection for players, the large majority of whom do not enjoy the privileged position of western European professionals and certain other countries: suffering confiscated passports, irregular payment of salaries, all kinds of pressure upon renewal of contract, obstacles with management etc.

It is a welcome move that FIFPro works in consultation with UEFA, the European Professional Football Leagues and the European Club Association, but FIFA should also take more action in Europe and the rest of the world within the scope of its specific responsibilities.

4.4) – Eradicate abuse among agents and transfers

Several negative trends are evident: excessive agents’ commission, an increase in successive transfers with dubious motives, the role of “third-party ownership” of players, surplus numbers of players under contract at the same club with numerous loans to other clubs, resulting virtually in multiple ownership of clubs, etc.

In 2009, a FIFA working party made up of club representatives and players, in other words, of employers and employees, reached agreement on regulating intermediary action between clubs and players, regardless of the intermediary’s legal status (whether parent, lawyer, agent), and on the withdrawal of the licence. It was a positive development when the FIFA Committee for Club Football included this vision in its agenda in January 2013.

5)     – FOOTBALL AND POLITICS: ABANDON ILLUSIONARY DEBATES AND MOVE TOWARDS MORE COOPERATION

Generally speaking, sport has always been under the illusion that sport and politics do not mix. Yes, it is an illusion, especially when we realise that no world competition (World Cup, Olympic Games), continental or regional competition (for example, paying tribute to Rwanda for financing CECAFA competitions) or national competition can be organised, financed or given security protection without the backing of state public authorities.

It is also an illusion to imagine that football lives in a bubble, as it is constantly being taken over politically by government members occupying places in sports bodies or exerting pressure on their decisions.

I therefore believe that it is necessary for FIFA to ponder long and hard on the question of ties between sport and politics, discarding any taboos. As I see it, there are at least three points.

5.1) – Make football independent of any regional conflict

Such conflicts flare up frequently, then die away, although some (the Middle East, Cyprus and the two Koreas) seem, sadly, never-ending.

On several occasions, FIFA rightly championed the universal values of football by objecting to the Israeli boycot and subsequently in 1998 recognising Palestinian football, and, during the 2010 World Cup preliminary competition, by ruling that the two matches between the two Koreas, scheduled for play in Pyongyang, be staged in Shanghai after the local authorities refused to respect FIFA protocol on flags and anthems, and by staging the matches between Chad and Sudan during the same preliminary competition while the two countries were virtually at war, etc. Similarly, it is remarkable how Turkish clubs and Greek Cypriot clubs respect these very values during UEFA competitions, regardless of politics.

Football must therefore remain independent of such conflicts, and they must not affect the drawing of lots by separating into different pots the names of associations whose countries are allegedly refusing to play against one another. Furthermore, anyone in football found crouching behind these conflicts should be sanctioned.

In the same vein, FIFA must find appropriate solutions to allow the basic right for everyone to play football to be respected: by creating a category of “associate” members that will enable support and “international” activities on territories whose associations are unable to become members of FIFA, by devising creative and/or temporary solutions to a wide range of complex situations (Kosovo, Greenland, French overseas departments and territories) in order to authorise international football.

Finally, although FIFA is not in a position to act as a peacemaker, it should take every possible initiative to create a tradition of “footall diplomacy”, designed to reduce regional conflicts and demonstrate that sport is blazing a trail ahead of “politics” and not trailing behind it.

5.2) – Remould the triangle of cooperation, governments-associations-FIFA

On some continents, and in Africa in particular, football – especially national team football – could not survive without government subsidies. There is therefore no point in claiming that the autonomy and independence of associations that FIFA advocates for its members imply a lack of cooperation.

Conversely, financial aid from governments does not grant automatic rights, such as arbitrarily replacing officials at an assocation, or dictating action in the day-to-day management of sport, or preventing “friendly” clubs from being relegated, or passing laws negating an association’s authority etc.

FIFA must rigorously defend its members, albeit in a spirit of cooperation, because the threat of suspension – often justified but sometimes automatic – makes FIFA unfairly appear authoritarian and out of touch with reality. Like the “standard agreement for cooperation between government authorities and associations” discussed by the Task Force “for the good of the game” in 2006-2007, FIFA could well relaunch the initiative for a major debate on major topics, especially for the good of members that often find themselves wedged precariously between the hammer and the anvil.

5.3) – Define accurately the specificity of sport to the European Union

Interference by European Union authorities represents by far the most extreme intrusion in football affairs.

Apart from the Bosman case, which UEFA should have resolved by discussion, given that the player’s situation was out of sync with the end of the 20^th century, such interference is at the heart of too many current grievances in football: deregulation, no fiscal harmonisation (which widens the gulf between competitions and clubs), the will, more or less openly admitted, to water down national identities in some kind of undefined or ill-defined European patriotism, etc.

Such interference has led to extreme legal instability in all aspects of football regulations. It has caused the so-called “monopoly of associations under Swiss law” to be questioned and led to constant interference in practically everything and to enact football regulations tailored solely for the European Union. This, in turn, nurtures an attitude of superiority that bolsters the Eurocentralisation of the various structures of football which have finally accepted decisions from the European Union that they would never have tolerated from any other regional political structures (African Union, ASEAN, Gulf Cooperation Council etc.).

For that reason, the IOC and the sports movement, headed by FIFA, pushed for recognition of the specificity of sport, now incorporated in article 165 of the Treaty of Lisbon. A proposal was made to define these special features in compliance with the principles of sport and the rights of its stakeholders, in other words, the athletes themselves. Their representatives had to approve the contents to show that the the special nature of sport did not mean a “lack of rights”. Unfortunately these endeavours have so far come to naught, but they must be taken up again.

x     x     x

In view of the widespread public scepticism towards institutions and their activities, FIFA should serve as a guiding light and, for this reason, I support the process of reforms set in motion by President Blatter.

However, the feeling prevails that nothing can be done. Competition formats are becoming bloated. Inequality in play between clubs is growing, promoting the predominance of a minority of football stakeholders and creating an oligopoly that undermines the unpredictability of sports results.

A feeling of helplessness has set in and the impression that forging ahead with ever more matches and growing inequality is the only option ahead. In this context, we shall therefore have to come to grips with the real problems, namely the redistribution of revenue and awareness of the problems facing everyone involved. Every participant should be included in any decision-making and, in times of crisis, stadium seats and season tickets should be more moderately priced to promote access to the live action.

The future of football in the 21^st century is at the very heart of the debate.

Are we steering towards an elitist and hegemonic form of football dominated, like basketball and the NBA, by two or or three western European club competitions, headed by a FIFA in the mould of FIBA – reduced at best to a limited role and at worst to honorary status?

Or are we determined to uphold a truly universal type of football that respects and listens to everyone, one that is supported by FIFA’s mastery of development, its proactive vision and its determination to incorporate true governance at the service of everyone?

Time will soon tell.

Jérôme Champagne

Zurich, 10 March 2013