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.
The way I saw it, (apart from the obvious hurt) - MFA took too long in naming players and taking its own action... a player accused of such a betrayal was actually playing in its own league. Also, MFA has been too cautious, and even the media played its part on it. On the Sunday papers, there wasn't even one editorial about it. A lot of people maybe sensing they're only living in glasshouses?
ReplyDeleteIn my view MFA did its duty to investigate and hand the evidence to UEFA. Naming the players would not have solved anything. After all, in the end 2 of the accused were acquitted. Whether this is right or not we can't really tell because it's difficult to discuss the merits of the case without knowing the circumstances. But had these players been named in advance, they would have been prejudged by all and sundry. I am by no means justifying the outcome of the case (I also tink it's rather skewed). In this case the MFA could not do much more than it did.
ReplyDeleteNice post. I learn something totally new and challenging on websites I stumbleupon on a daily basis.
ReplyDeleteIt's always interesting to read articles from other writers and use a little something from other websites.
my web site ... Xtreme Nitro Reviews