Will FFA AGM resolve Australian football's governance crisis?
Football Federation Australia’s Annual General Meeting takes place in Sydney on Thursday. This is the final opportunity for Australian football to resolve its long-standing governance crisis in-house. But, four days out from the meeting, there is no indication that compromise is forthcoming.
FFA is limping into the last chance saloon. It has failed repeatedly to satisfy Fifa’s demand to find agreement among stakeholders on a consensual membership model in accordance with statute 15 (j) regarding representative democracy. Its latest proposal also seems destined to fall on deaf ears.
FFA is pinning its hopes on a 9-4-1-1-1 model for a revised congress. Under this plan, the state federations retain their nine existing votes, A-League clubs see an increase in their voting power from one to four, while additional votes go to the players’ union, a representative of professional women’s football, and a representative for women’s football at the community level.
The resolution is not supported by the A-League clubs or PFA, who explain their position in a useful video. Their primary concern is that the FFA’s proposal does not go far enough in removing the bloc power of state federations. This has long been a concern of A-League clubs who have argued that the close relationship between states and the FFA board has contributed to persistent gerrymandering.
The support of at least 75% of voting members is required to pass a constitutional amendment (or eight of the nine member federations). It is believed seven states will continue their ongoing support of FFA chairman Steven Lowy, while two – Football NSW and Football Federation Victoria (FFV) – will not. Of these, only Victoria’s vote is considered negotiable.
FFV chairman Kimon Taliadoros wrote to Lowy on the eve of last month’s Extraordinary General Meeting explaining why he couldn’t support the motion presented at that time. Taliadoros’ letter cites the lack of consensus among stakeholders; the failure to resolve the issue of gender equity; the lack of commitment to a second division, and; concerns over the independence of the FFA board. This is a hefty list of issues to be overcome in a period where plenty has been going on elsewhere to commandeer attention.
If, as seems possible, the FFA’s proposal fails, Fifa’s intervention becomes near-inevitable. Even if the 9-4-1-1-1 model does gain enough support at the AGM, it still may not be enough to stave off a normalisation committee, as sources close to negotiations believe Fifa could still determine that the changes do not go far enough.
Fifa has been kept abreast of all the to-ings and fro-ings of recent months, so when the organisation’s Member Associations Committee meets in Zurich on 4 December they should be well placed to appraise the outcome of Thursday’s AGM. This body will make a recommendation to either approve the changes to Australia’s constitution, or impose a normalisation committee to resolve the situation once and for all on Fifa’s terms. Should the latter be recommended, another Fifa committee – this time the Bureau of the Council, chaired by Gianni Infantino – will be convened as swiftly as possible (normally within a matter of days) to pass the decisive judgement.
From there, Fifa will issue a letter to FFA and the Asian Football Confederation stating Australia’s
failure to comply with Fifa’s demands for governance reform, stripping the board of any authority within the Fifa pyramid. The letter will also detail the immediate effect of the normalisation committee, the identity of its members, its mandate and its timescale. The normalisation committee then in effect operates as a replacement board for the allotted period of time. The current board will be expected to disband.
This may sound drastic but the mandate of any normalisation committee will be extremely limited in scope. It will likely be charged with just two things: resolving the impasse over congress expansion and then managing the process for that revised congress to elect the new board.
Australia’s qualification for Russia 2018 hints at what the deadline for any normalisation process is likely to be. Fifa will want to avoid the awkward PR of a non-official office bearer among the dignitaries at the World Cup. Consequently, any normalisation committee can expect a mandate of around six months to expedite the process for an elected FFA chairperson to travel to Russia in June.
To get to this point the committee will have to facilitate consensus among stakeholders as to the composition of the new congress, hold an EGM to vote on the constitutional amendments, and then manage the AGM required to elect the new board. There are 21-day lead times for each of these official meetings, as well as the time required to reach agreement on the preferred model and identify the candidates to occupy the new board positions. Time will be tight, especially with the inconvenience of Christmas and New Year holidays at the outset.
None of this should impinge on the day-to-day running of football in Australia. The biggest risk could be the loss of administrative personnel in the event of any normalisation committee being imposed. For the sake of stability it must be hoped the majority of FFA’s senior management remain in post and continue their employment. However, it does not seem unreasonable to suspect – as in any corporate environment – that the removal of a board could precipitate senior members of staff leaving the organisation. This could be acutely problematic while the search for a new Socceroos coach is underway.
There also remains the possibility FFA could contest the decision and pursue their grievance in court. Sources indicate this would have no bearing on Fifa’s process which is predicated on the contractual obligation of members, underpinned by the Swiss system.
After months of instability and rancour, resolution is finally in sight. The first domino will fall on Thursday but thereafter FFA’s fate will be in Fifa’s hands. Whether that is for a matter of days or months remains to be seen.