AGFF/Stabroek News debacle: The Federation responds…

Sep 03, 2022 Sports

Consistent with its declared disenchantment with the Guyana Football Federation, SN has once again essayed another editorial – SN of August 24, 2022 entitled “GFF Constitution Amendments,” in another attempt to further diminish the image of the organization.

The nub of the editorial incorrectly asserts the Federation is attempting to “hoodwink the local associations by surreptitiously introducing amendments that might not actually be in keeping with good governance and transparency.”

Ever since SN alighted on this statutes revision story, their main concerns centered on: it was not a FIFA directed initiative, it was not being done in other jurisdictions, and it will not contribute to good governance and transparency. As their launching pad, they harnessed the disaffection of an Elite Club member to catapult their charges.

In response, the GFF established beyond cavil that the first two aforementioned concerns were baseless and this was carried verbatim in SN just a little more than a week ago when they reported FIFA Member Association Manager, Sofia Malizia, as stating as follows: “One of FIFA’s primary objectives is that all of its members, shall comply with their obligations as provided in the FIFA Statutes. In this respect, GFF, as a member of FIFA and CONCACAF, must ensure that their statutes fully comply with the mandatory provisions and requirements contained in the Statutes of FIFA and CONCACAF. Furthermore, FIFA encourages all member associations to adopt additional principles of good governance and best practices in their statutes and regulations. In this context, the revision process which is being carried out with the GFF is something that FIFA is doing with the 211 members associations, and in particular, in the Caribbean, we have finished and we are carrying out the process in all the federations in due time. Consequently, we can confirm that a large number of members in the Caribbean region (and CONCACAF as a whole) are currently conducting Statutes revision processes as required by FIFA/CONCACAF.”

Obviously dissatisfied, SN then used the hallowed column inches of its August 24 editorial to not only assert the proposed changes will not contribute to good governance and transparency, but in arguing its case, it engaged in a number of falsehoods. It is therefore with a heaviness of heart that the GFF once again seeks to set the record straight.

First the process:

2022. May 3, 2022 – FIFA wrote the GFF directing that there be a revision of the 2015 statues during in the 3rd quarter of 2022. Thereupon the GFF appointed the Statutes Review Committee comprising the Chairperson and six (6) Statutory Members of the GFF.
2023. June 13-14, 2022 – FIFA and Concacaf representatives visited the GFF and conducted working meetings with the GFF Executive Committee, the GFF Statutes Review Committee, and the GFF Legal Officer.
2024. June 27, 2022 – FIFA prepared and submitted the first draft of the Statutes to the GFF. This occasioned the Statutes Review Committee convening a total of five (5) Working Meetings with members of the GFF General Council to examine the first draft submitted by FIFA. Proposals and submissions from the Members were received discussed and shared with FIFA.
2025. July 19, 2022 – The new draft resulting from the Committee’s work was sent to FIFA for review along with the proposal submitted by the members.
2026. August 2, 2022 – A virtual working meeting was held with the Statutes Review Committee, the GFF Administration and the FIFA and Concacaf representatives to discuss the new draft of the Statutes. The agreed points coming out of that meeting were then submitted to the GFF Legal Officer, who was tasked with updating the said document and verifying the cross referencing of Articles. The final draft was then submitted to FIFA, Concacaf and the GFF Administration.
2027. August 6, 2022 – The final draft was sent to FIFA, Concacaf and the Members of the GFF and is awaiting Congress’ approval.

What the process shows is that at all material times there were opportunities for participation by the GFF membership, and indeed, they did participate. Every member had the document in their possession for the past twenty (20) days. How then can one claim the process lacked transparency?

Then there is the issue of good governance. A constitution by its very nature proscribes how an organization will be governed. In a nutshell it sets forth the Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How the organization will be administered. Any learning organization will, with the passage of time and altering objective conditions, find it necessary to adapt to these changing conditions. Pray tell us, how can the revision of the GFF Constitution not be seen as a mechanism to enhance good governance?

We said earlier we are responding to the inaccuracies spewed forth by SN with a heavy heart. This is because we remain convinced that notwithstanding the evidence we proffered to the contrary, SN will continue in its falsehoods as it engages in its agenda-setting function. When journalists abandon the canons of good journalism and hew towards entrepreneurial activities by becoming promoters of sporting activities that may not find favour with sporting authorities, the commingling of the two pursuits will always result in a conflict of interest. Biased and inaccurate reportage will therefore be its handmaiden. SN’s reportage of things GFF is Exhibit A. That the management of SN cannot discern that simple fact and continues to give free rein to such a journalist, leads one to wonder who is hoodwinking who.