FIFA has successfully developed its own private legal system – Now governments need to intervene

The World Cup was a success, especially for France, Russia and FIFA. But the governing board of the football world can not rest on its laurels.

After all, a better than expected tournament can not erase a series of major scandals. These include the infamous decision of its executive committee to award the finals of 2022 to Qatar. FIFAGate, a case of money laundering and fraud conspiracy being investigated by the US and Swiss authorities, which has already resulted in the conviction of several senior football officials and the suspension of the 39, former FIFA President Sepp Blatter

. Some critics of the organization have even called for radical action, such as the complete abolition of FIFA.

A bit ignored in these discussions, however, is that FIFA has successfully developed its own private legal system. And while this is generally a good thing for the game, it also leaves the organization dangerously free from any accountability to governments or civil society.

FIFA's own rules, which govern the world of football, have a degree of sophistication almost unique. independence from the interference of the state. When Ronaldo recently left Real Madrid for Juventus, the transfer fee of 100 million euros was granted in accordance with the transfer rules of FIFA, and not to Spanish, Italian or European law. A similar arrangement in any other field seems unthinkable. For example, lawyers' badociations can not enact rules requiring lawyers to pay compensation if they hire a lawyer from a competitor.

Similarly, football disputes are generally not resolved in ordinary courts. The execution of FIFA decisions is not supported by the strength of state representatives, but by special sanctions such as the temporary ban on playing football. Cases of national or international government interfering in football, such as the Bosman ruling in the 1990s, which allowed players to freely change clubs at the end of their contract, are extremely rare.

good for football because it offers what states can not: common rules covering borders tailored to the needs of sport. These rules promote predictable contractual relationships and equal conditions for competition – and they provide for the early resolution of disputes by ordinary courts. It is hard to imagine how football clubs could be internationally competitive if some of them were subject to more favorable local rules than others.

The rise of football elites

building its own legal system, with minimal oversight, made it vulnerable in the longer run. The recent scandals are partly the result of a takeover by some football bureaucrats who want to increase their own influence and extend their stay in power.

In this respect, FIFA is similar to any other bureaucratic organization. The difference is that others are subject to transparency, media coverage and the disciplining effect of civil society. For a long time, FIFA was essentially immune to these factors

. Its success in building the football legal system was based on the fact that states and supranational organizations such as the EU were abandoning part of their regulatory monopoly. Implicit in this arrangement is the idea that FIFA's special status can be tolerated as long as it continues to promote the interests of wider stakeholder groups – mainly clubs and players, but also of the world. 39; others involved in the game.

She is weakened whenever she gives priority to one group rather than another or even that she favors special interests within herself. a group, for example by referring to the demands of big clubs at the expense of smaller clubs. This is why external judicial investigations such as the FIFAGate corruption case are so damaging and jeopardize the existence of the custom-made legal system of football and even of FIFA itself.

These investigations will continue, thanks to governance issues within the organization. Clubs and players sometimes lack formal channels to get involved in decisions that directly concern them, for example, while FIFA also has no mechanisms in place to take into account the interests of those who are not related to football. Since third parties do not have a say in the rules, their interests can be ignored. Consider, for example, the alleged use of forced labor in the venues that will organize the 2022 World Cup in Qatar

Building a Better FIFA

So what should we do elites with excessive powers? Within a nation-state, it is well known that civil society plays a key role in limiting executive power. Modern democracies are successful because they have a democratic process in which the media, NGOs and activists oversee public decision-making. But if football does not yet have an equivalent civil society, the states themselves should intervene. As we say in a recent article, governments can be FIFA's civil society by intervening or threatening to intervene to correct FIFA's failures without ruining the benefits.

If FIFA collapses and football becomes governed by regular laws, the game would lose the benefits of the adapted rules and innovation. Conversely, if states do not act, FIFA runs the risk of self-destruction.

Branislav Hock, Anti-Fraud Lecturer, University of Portsmouth and Suren Gomtsian, Professor of Business Law, University of Leeds. ]

This article was published on Conversation . Read the original article.