Acrimony, disputes, accusations of corruption still permeate football landscape

Mar 27, 2013 Sports

---

 

 

By Rawle Welch
The general feeling within the local football fraternity is that following the declarations of the FIFA / CONCACAF team that visited Guyana earlier this year the local football landscape would have been saturated with a large degree of goodwill, conciliation and good governance.
Instead, acrimony, disputes and accusations of corruption have replaced those previous sentiments and the belief is that the Guyana Football Federation’s Electoral Congress, scheduled to be held on April 12, will definitely not ease many of the concerns raised during the team’s visit or even reflect an iota of goodwill that was signed onto by all the parties that were summoned to the meeting.
The disputes that followed the staging of elections for the Berbice Football Association and the Guyana National Women’s Football Association, whose processes were presided over by officers attached to the local governing body, have ignited suspicions of cronyism, nepotism and downright corruption.
The poor attempt by the hierarchy to let the relevant stakeholders believe that the issues are being addressed has failed to inspire confidence among the aggrieved members and the general opinion is that selfish ambitions could once again damage the image of the sport and ultimately derail the prospects of future development.
There is the overpowering perception that the entire aim is to ensure that those eligible to vote in the upcoming GFF Congress are trusted gofers who will not upset the applecart, but are more than willing to continue with the current administration that has racked up a debt of close to $50million and devoid of credibility and business acumen to alleviate or even get rid of that burden.
Not one single member of the current administration should be spared; they have all participated in the present malady and the only escape from the iron-fisted rule that has clouded Guyana’s football for over two decades is to vote them out of power.
There should be no survivors, it is as plain as that.
When you look at the three candidates (Alfred King, Aubrey Major and Christopher Matthias) who have received nominations to vie for the Presidency of the Federation, only the latter has displayed the proclivity to be inclusive, while his record of sacrifice for the defenseless is matchless.
Matthias was one of the central characters in the fight to regain voting rights for the Georgetown Football Association after the GFF had willfully denied the body for an extended long period.
It is testimony to his loyalty and commitment to the clubs, fans and stakeholders.
There has been talk of past financial misconduct, but to date no evidence has surfaced to back up the accusations and until that occurs, then he must be given the opportunity to take the reins.
King, on the other hand, is handicapped by his political affiliation, while his prominent involvement in the controversial Interim Management Committee for cricket, a body that has not been recognised by the ICC and WICB, is enough evidence to imply that it will be difficult for him not to contradict the statutes of FIFA which prohibit governmental interference in football affairs. Those issues, in addition to racking up a pretty dismal track record in the improvement of local football, could prove to be insurmountable hurdles as he attempts to progress to the upper echelon of administration.
He has had numerous opportunities to assist in the development of the sport, having worked directly under the Minister of Culture, Youth & Sport in an influential capacity as its Permanent Secretary. Despite such influence, he has failed to deliver and trying to solicit support for his candidacy for the Presidency after a less than encouraging performance, will be an onerous task.
Major, known more for his association with the Kashif & Shanghai Organisation, also comes with a large degree of skepticism emanating from his tenure as Organising Secretary of the GFF.
His prowess as a promoter has not translated into the administrative arena with similar success, and this limitation could prove to be fatal for his stated ambition to ascend to the Presidency, especially when the electorate analyse his term as the Organising Secretary during the period that the Federation racked up close to $50million in liability when compared to his Organisation’s consistent profit from its yearend football extravaganza.
It was the Kashif & Shanghai Organisation that housed and administered all activities during Guyana’s World Cup campaign, and was responsible for ticketing, sales of tickets and advertising, while his involvement in the discussions related to the shifting of the qualifier against Mexico not only left a bitter taste in the mouths of Guyanese fans, but also underlined the extent of the Federation’s disloyalty and contempt for stakeholders.
To better understand how the Federation operated during that period, one just has to read a report written by Jason Davis, October 1, 2012 from www.kckrs.com.
“In a move that somehow doesn’t violate any rules governing World Cup qualifying in CONCACAF, Guyana will play Mexico, a team already qualified for the fourth round Hexagonal, at BBVA Compass Stadium in Houston on October 12th. No, not Houston, Guyana (there is no Houston, Guyana), Houston, Texas. Go ahead and get that paper, Guyana.
The Guyanese federation sold promotional rights to the game to a third party, who then negotiated with BBVA Compass Stadium to place the game there. The Mexican FA had previously announced on its website that the game would be played in Phoenix at the much larger University of Phoenix stadium.
Mexico playing on U.S. soil against teams other than the USMNT is nothing new, of course, with El Tri playing several large-venue friendlies in the United States each year. Mexico draws ‘em in, and the Mexico FA rakes up the cash. Mexico is, by most available measures, the most popular soccer team in the United States. While distasteful to USMNT fans, it makes sense that the Mexicans would take advantage of that reality.
But this dynamic is much different. This is a World Cup qualifier, not a friendly; as a competitive match, it seems strange that Guyana has the right to sell the rights and allow it to be moved out of the country in an obvious cash grab. Mexico fans will no doubt buy up all available tickets as soon as the game goes on sale, making the environment entirely pro-Mexico.
The game is a dead rubber. The result will have no bearing on Guyana or Mexico’s fortunes in World Cup qualifying. And there would be every expectation of a Mexico victory even if the game was in Guyana. But it’s still a qualifier, and should be treated as one. The fact that Guyana will (presumably) benefit from the money made from the game doesn’t excuse the lack of competitive integrity. The precedent being set here is frankly frightening.”
Then there is a report by Kevin McCauley on Oct 13 2012 in the SBNation which stated that “Guyana will go home somewhere in the high six figures richer after hosting this match in Houston, Texas. Mission accomplished.”
The Houston Chronicle also reported that “The Guyana Soccer Federation sold the rights to the match to promoters SponSports and Planet Futbol, which brought the El Salvador-New Zealand game in May for the first international match at BBVA. With the cheapest seat going for $70, tickets will go on sale to the general public at 1:30 p.m. Wednesday. A sellout crowd of 22,039 is expected, and the secondary-ticket market should also be hopping with folks wanting to watch the country that won its first Olympic gold medal in soccer at the London Games.”
Long after the campaign finished, the Federation furnished excuses of its inability to provide financial figures gained by depriving thousands of Guyanese fans the opportunity to see stars such as Javier Hernandez on home soil, under the pretext that the proceeds will help alleviate the debt which we recently heard is still enormous. So, for such mulishness, a price must be paid.
It has not shifted from its intransigent posture; it still reflects the old ingrained repressive behaviour of remaining silent and unilateral on pertinent issues affecting the game’s development.
April 12 should be the day that footballers, fans and interested stakeholders break free from years of this current executive dominion.

---

---