Liverpool FC Forum

Exclusive: the real reason why Watmore resigned from the FA

The Football Association chief executive resigned on 18th March 2010 after about nine months in the job.   Like virtually all of his recent predecssors he  has simply thrown in the towel once he realised the enormity of the problem the FA faces.

No reason has been given for his departure, and at the moment I am writing this (the evening of 22 March) no one is even putting forward possibilities on the media.   Radio 5 Live in Britain ended up with the fact that “he probably found it quite hard to get things done.”  Sky played word games with the outgoing exec’s name.

I am going to put forward here a totally separate reason for his departure.  I don’t know what was said behind closed doors but these arguments have the merit of being consistent with all the facts of the case.

The top dog in the FA has two enormous problem areas to deal with.  First he is responsible for liaison with Fifa and Uefa, the relevant governing bodies.  The FA has to accept the rulings of these bodies and do their bidding.  Second he is responsible for the financial situation of the FA.   As with all top people who join an organisation, Ian Watmore at the FA had to work within the financial situation left by those before him.

I’ll deal with the finances of the FA first, and then the issue of Fifa.

Wembley is an unmitigated disaster for the FA.  Holding events at the venue cost a total of £83.8m, which is a lot.  Add in the interest payments on the debt incurred in building Wembley, another £39m a year.  Add in capital repayments of £11.8m and you have the total cost of running the stadium and satisfying lenders was £134.6m in 2008, of which the FA and English football’s clubs had to pay £86.6m.

Between now and 2012 the situation is not too bad since the interest on the loan has been fixed for that period at 6.9% but the total sum the FA must repay over the 15 years of the new Wembley loan is estimated at more than £930m.  In short the FA is in a worse financial state than Man U.

Shall I do that one again?  The FA is in a worse financial state than Man U.

And all this was avoidable, because most nations don’t have a fancy-dan home stadium of their own.  If the Ems is good enough for Brazil, might not England use it?   There is Very Old Trafford too.  And Newcastle.   They could even use Villa Park if they want to play North Korea or someone.

But no, they chose to go and build a vanity box.

As the scheme unfolded the FA did the only thing it could do.  It persuaded most football journalists to shut up and not talk about it.  It was a tough job, and involved lots of smiling, but they did it. If you don’t believe me, name the last paper that compared the Man U debt with the FA debt at Wembley.

So that by itself is enough to give anyone childish enough to take on the FA job a headache.  But let’s now turn to the other theme – dealing with Fifa.

One of my favourite moments in the history of football politics and economics came in 2006 – and you may recall me quoting the comments of a US judge that,  “Fifa lied and lied and lied again.”  In fact I have indulged myself many a time quoting and re-quoting this line in an attempt to show just how corrupt football is at the top level.  My apologies for boring you with it again, but it is relevant.

There’s a reason for returning to this court case today, but first some background.   Fifa were in court to answer charges that they were deceptive in dealing with Mastercard sponsorship of the world cup – it turned out they were dealing with Visa at the same time despite saying they were not.

In the end the judge slaughtered Fifa and revealed just how twisted and bent the world footballing body under Blatter had become.  Fifa was ordered by the court to pay Mastercard $90m, and as a result (guess what) none of the top crooks resigned, but four minor execs got the chop.

The judge had a particularly nice way of summarising the the senior negotiator at Fifa in the case, Chuck Blazer, and I am grateful to the Observer for reminding me of this, just this week.  ”Mr Blazer’s testimony was generally without credibility… [his] testimony is rejected as fabricated…  Fifa’s slogan is ‘fair play’ … this constituted the opposite.”

The reason this is funny today is because Chuck Blazer, who is still an executive officer at Fifa, despite all his past corruption, says ethics regulations at Fifa (actually I didn’t know there were any, but there are) are far too tight and formal and should can be ignored.  Apparently he has said that bidders should be free to approach delegates in private, without press statements.

Now this is the body that the chief of the FA has to deal with.  And it is perfectly clear that to do so, you either have to take them on, which by and large means no national tournaments here, so even greater Wembley debt, or you have to kowtow to the crooks, the cheats and the conmen.

In short, if you want to work with Fifa you have to be crooked yourself.  Just follow the daily adventures of Jack Warner if you don’t believe me.  Type in Jack Warner Fifa corruption in Google.

So we might ask, how is it that the newspapers and broadcast media in the UK ignore this?  How come Sky Sports News today limited itself to “Watmore is no more”.   (Honest, that was the extent of their coverage).

The answer is in fact very simple and fairly obvious.  In fact you’ve probably guessed it already. Just as the FA needs Wembley as part of its bid for the world cup etc, so newspapers, TV and radio thrive on internationals.  They spend billions bidding for the games, and they want to write endlessly about the games.  They know that they are dealing with a corrupt organisation, and through this knowledge they are also aware that if they were to once rock the boat, they would not get accreditation for games, and they would not get the chance to bid for any rights.

Personally I would love this.  A media blackout on international football as a result of the media telling it like it really is would be the first step to stopping the corruption and stupidity in the game and reclaiming football for the fans.

But sadly we are a long way from that at the moment.

The FA, now so hopelessly in debt that it is unlikely ever to recover, will appoint another poor misguided person who will try and take the job on without realising the truth about Fifa and the truth about the debt.  They will be led into this minefield because the media will not publish the truth.

What we need is for the FA to find itself grossly incompetent, and go into administration.    They can sell Wembley to Mr Abramovich of Sheik Yermoney and we can be rid of the whole nonsense.  They can tell Fifa that we have had enough and we are setting up our own competitions which are not recognised by them.

Or they can sup with the devil, and become increasingly corrupted, and they can carry the journalists with them.

In the meanwhile we can praise one man for having the courage to walk out.

© Tony Attwood 2010.