IS THIS REALLY FINE?
FIFA’s punishments can leave priority questioned
MOSCOW — The World Cup rulings in FIFA’s disciplinary court have not always been easy to comprehend.
Sweden was slugged $70,700 for players wearing non-approved socks, and Croatia was hit with the same monetary penalty when a player took a non-sponsor’s drink onto the field.
Yet a Russia fan’s neo-Nazi banner and a Serbian World War Two-era nationalist symbol waved inside venue drew only $10,100 fines, paid by their national soccer bodies which are responsible for fan misconduct at games.
Commercial rules can seem to be enforced more strictly than bad behaviour, and Argentine great Diego Maradona appears to enjoy a unique code of conduct of his own.
Maradona, a paid FIFA ambassador, uses Facebook to explain away allegations of racism and offensive behaviour from VIP seats, charges that have previously led soccer’s world governing body to ban players.
At times, the priorities and consistency in FIFA decisions can look a curious form of World Cup justice. Even before the World Cup, FIFA was criticized by the anti-discrimination group Kick It Out for prioritizing commercial gain over eliminating racism from the sport.
But sports law expert James Kitching says FIFA’s approach makes some sense, because the World Cup depends on sponsors and broadcasters paying for exclusive deals.
“A financial sanction is always heavy in a commercial case because exclusivity is something Coca-Cola or Adidas pays millions of dollars for,” Kitching, the former head of sports legal affairs at the Asian Football Confederation, told The Associated Press.
The $70,000 fines imposed on Sweden and Croatia followed repeated warnings from FIFA.
“It’s a sensible solution,” Kitching said of the heavy fines. “If they are not seen to protect it (sponsor exclusivity), they put everything at risk.”
FIFA reacted strongest to ambush marketing at the 2010 World Cup against a European brewery challenging Budweiser’s exclusive rights.
A group of women sat together in matching orange mini-dresses during a game at Johannesburg in the colours of the brewery. The case was dropped only with the brewery promising not to try a similar stunt at a future World Cup.
Still, such cases can make FIFA seem more anxious about commercial threats to its $6 billion World Cup revenue than offensive fan behaviour.
FIFA dismissed a suggestion that $70,700 was a baseline figure for breaking commercial rules.
It has so far added up to $487,000 in fines imposed by FIFA’s disciplinary committee in Russia.
A further six-figure sum must be paid by federations and players in mandatory fines for on-field conduct. Teams due to pay $15,150 for getting five yellow cards in a game, rising by $3,300 for subsequent bookings, include Argentina, Colombia and Morocco.
Skeptics could point to the fines helping for the “relevant development projects” cited by FIFA last year to explain Maradona’s new ambassador duty. It brought the often-volatile Argentine back into the fold after years of public spats with previous FIFA leaders and the consequences were easily seen in Russia.
Maradona’s double middle-finger gesture celebrating a late winning goal for Argentina against Nigeria was seen globally in the official FIFA broadcast. A similar gesture by England’s Dele Alli in a World Cup qualifying game last year led FIFA to ban him for the next qualifier.
At a short and intense World Cup finals tournament, banning players has more impact.
FIFA resisted calls to ban Switzerland players Granit Xhaka and Xherdan Shaqiri in Russia. Its rules suggested mandatory two-game bans were possible for celebrating goals with hand gestures of an Albania eagle likely to provoke rival Serbia fans. Both players were fined $10,100.
Apparently there’s no consistency, although Kitching suggests: “There has been a shift perhaps on how (FIFA) have treated such cases.”