Match-fixing in the red shirt

The Norway vs. Malta saga goes on. Following the decision of UEFA's Control and Disciplinary Body, which handed a 10-year ban to (only) one player, reactions on all media abound. My immediate observations where the following (not necessarily in the same order of priority):

1. The paper I submitted at the Sport and EU conference in June needs updating. We had referred to this game as the first case of alleged match-fixing involving the Maltese national team.

 Photo©timesofmalta.com

2. The popular belief seems to be that Kevin Sammut couldn't have been the only one involved, if at all. Quite a few gaps remain, at least on the information rendered public so far. In turn, some comments in social media seem to portray Sammut as a victim.

3. Defence lawyers appear to be going down the 'procedural' path, claiming that the player was not afforded a fair hearing. Thi s is one of those very typical situations where the (autonomous)  sports judicial system comes under the microscope of legal practitioners who ply their trade in courts of law. I must admit that this 'clash of cultures' haunts me as well every now and then. At times is seems unconceivable that certain values, which we take as accepted practice outside of football, are perceived to be somewhat overlooked when deciding summarily within the football family.

A lot has been written on the autonomy of sport and the need to pursue good governance (which includes a fair justice system). Certainly, it is very difficult to comment on the merits of the case when there is not enough informtation to do so. It would be nice to have the full picture so as to determine how suitable the whole disciplinary process was.

4. It is interesting to see that the Malta FA President did not shy away from reiterating that 'overwhelming evidence' suggests the match was indeed fixed and that moreplayers were involved. The case was decided upon by UEFA's disciplinary body because the issue arose in one of its competitions. Does this mean that MFA could not take any further measures on this case if it wanted to? This is UEFA jurisdiction, so I doubt it. Chapter closed, apparently.

Fit and proper? The real test is here and now.

It is encouraging to see that football keeps enjoying constant (increasing?) demand, both from a 'consumption' perspective (i.e. following of the various competitions) as well as from an investment point of view. As a person involved in local football, I fully appreciate how important both are. New investment in the local game is undoubtedly hard to come by. The MFA President keeps harping on the fact the the current structure of most of our clubs is inadequate – and he has a point. What is one investing in when putting money in a local club – a non-profit organisation based on the voluntary contribution of a few?

This summer has been characterised by announcements, rebuttals, retractions and rumours of a spate of investors intending to 'invest' in some of our Premier League clubs. We've been here before. Way back in 2004 – yes, that far back – Msida FC had partnered with Roberto Goveani ('ex-Torino Calcio') who had promised financial backing. I don't know how the story unfolded, but since then Msida had to endure difficult times and now linger in the Second Division. A few other Premier League clubs have had their own moment of glory - does Marsaxlokk FC ring a bell?

The latest news concern Floriana, Sliema, and to a certain extent Qormi. Investors and partners have been unveiled and suddenly their future starts looking somewhat brighter. With all the success I wish these clubs, I cannot but sound a word of caution to all administrators of local clubs. I have on several occasions called for a 'fit and proper' test to be introduced in our regulations. Or at least a framework to that effect, that is adapted to our needs and realities, aimed at safeguarding clubs against the penetration in their administrative structures of persons with a history of offences related to fraud.

I have no doubt the said clubs have done their homework. I actually hope their ventures would prove to be a positive learning experience even for others. We should not, on the other hand, risk the future of perhaps more vulnerable clubs in dire need of fresh capital and unable to undertake the required objective filtering of potential investors. Think of lower division clubs rather than the big few.

At times a google search can already give you an idea of who we're dealing with. In reality, a proper due diligence process is needed. As in any other business context, it is crucial that we protect the local game from speculators, even more so when football relies on the integrity of the game, the presumption of healthy competition, and the unpredictability of the result.