Qatar decision a dark day for football
It seems that Qatar's progression to the next round of qualifying for the 2010 World Cup is not going down well in the footballing community, and not just because of the Emerson controversy (the Brazilian who represented Qatar when he wasn't eligible).
The following article discusses this controversy (and the issues surrounding those involved in FIFA's decision not to punish the QFA) as well as some other points of interest regarding the final match between Iraq and Qatar.
Well all I can say is b*ll*cks, FIFA. If world football's governing body demands respect from fans and journalists and governments it needs to be consistent.
Danny Vukovic was rightly made to serve his ban without an FFA-tailored "window". Various FAs (Kenya, Iran, Iraq) have rightly been brought to task for political interference.
So what on earth has the Qatari Football Association done to escape serious sanction for fielding a Brazilian, Marcio Passos De Albuquerque aka Emerson, in a World Cup qualifying match in Doha when he was ineligible to represent the Middle East state, having turned out for the Brazilian under-20 team in 1999?
Qatar should have been docked three points. They should be out of World Cup contention and Iraq in their place.
But Emerson and the Qataris got off scot-free because an official letter of complaint made by the Iraqis came after the March 26 match in question and not before. Once a ball was kicked, FIFA's hands were tied.
It was quick to point out to the Iraqis that article 13 of the 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Regulations clearly stipulates that all protests about player eligibility in WCQs be submitted in writing to its general secretariat 24 hours before the matches are held.
I've checked out the fine print and it says just that. All well and fine.
But then there is article 7 in the same document, which states unequivocally: "Each [national football] association shall ensure the following when selecting its representative team… a) all players shall be citizens of its country and subject to its jurisdiction; b) all players shall be eligible for selection in accordance with the Regulations Governing the Application of the FIFA Statutes and other relevant FIFA regulations.
"Any team that is found guilty of fielding an ineligible player shall forfeit the match in question. Victory and the resultant three points will be awarded to the opposing team as well as the score of 3-0, or greater, depending on the score of the match."
I don't know how it can be more clear-cut. The Qatar FA was asked to "ensure" before selecting its national team that all its players be "eligible for selection". It did not. It demonstrably failed its obligations to FIFA.
Yet for some unfathomable reason we have a situation where the original offence committed by the Qatar FA under Article 7 has been overridden by the tardiness of the Iraqis under Article 13, which now, lo and behold, now obviates the Qataris of all responsibility and punishes Iraq. Emerson, meanwhile, has been informed that he can never play for Qatar again.
The only explanation proffered by FIFA for this outrage is that the Qatar FA is "not responsible". How so?
Clearly the guy was a Brazilian not Bedouin. Whether or not he falsified his passport to change his age is irrelevant, a red herring (Emerson was arrested in Brazil for travelling with false documents in 2006).
It was incumbent upon the Qatar FA to vet Emerson's footballing record. There are only two explanations for what transpired once he became a citizen of Qatar. The Qatar FA did not check – or, worse, it did check but still went ahead and fielded him anyway.
Either way, guilty in my book.
But I don't make that decision. Who does? Guys like Salman Bin Ibrahim Bin Hamad Al Khalifa, the deputy chairman of FIFA's Disciplinary Committee and president of the Bahrain FA, one of the many Al Khalifas who run Bahrain and a good part of the Middle East.
Mohammed bin Hammam, the Qatari president of the Asian Football Confederation, visited the Gulf in February with FIFA president Sepp Blatter to inaugurate the AFC-funded Bahrain FA Accommodation and Training Centre in Manama.
I'm not alleging any corruption or impropriety on anyone's part, but it's not a good look for FIFA when Bahrain, the beneficiary of AFC largesse, is entrusted with making a decision that determines the World Cup future of a country, Qatar, that happens to be the home of the AFC president and host of the 2011 AFC Asian Cup.
I'm not even about to go into the conspiracy theories surrounding the Iraq-Qatar match in Dubai just gone, but suffice it to say some important people in very high places are convinced something was awry with the final result.
Anyone with enough time and interest can plough through the websites that have sprung up discussing everything from the choice of referee (a Qatari-born Emirati!) to the adverse pressure put on those Iraqis contracted to Qatari clubs to the benching of Younis Mahmoud.
Football fans the world over are owed a better explanation than the Qatar FA was "not responsible" for the Emerson affair.
If FIFA wants to promote fair play, it also has to practise it.
Source: The World Game
Sorry, I didn't word it very well. I should have said "I've posted a comment WITH A LINK to your blog on the original article". My bad.
I make the first post by a person filtered to avoid spam, however the next time you comment it wont be placed in moderation :)
edit: ah, you mean on the original post not on MR. Q whoops
__________________________
Mr. Q's Blog - A Qatari's View (My view on Qatar).
And I could do vice-versa - your post about poor customer service from car dealerships and service centres rings so true with me (though mine gripes are with Jeep, not Lexus), and ditto the state of the industrial area!
I've posted a comment to your blog on the original article, though it hasn't appeared yet.
I think I need to make a section in my blog called "Frustrations a la tallg" :P
I can't post on his post because sports sites are blocked in my office. Perhaps you could link to it :P
__________________________
Mr. Q's Blog - A Qatari's View (My view on Qatar).
I disagree. I don't think the federation should be held accountable when illegal activity by the player has prevented them being able to check his true status.
Surely it's the national federation that must be held accountable for checking a player's status. To throw the onus completely onto FIFA appears unrealistic even if they ARE the world governing body.
Checking the authenticity of documents in Qatar probably only applies for work permits which, I assume, Emerson would have needed to obtain.
I agree that FIFA should release a fuller statement explaining why they took the action they did. Whether Blatter would welcome this is another matter. Having been a colleague of one of his "associates" who sorted out the financial fiasco some years ago, I don't trust the bloke.
amnesia - I think you should leave a comment on the article in question putting across the points you made in your blog.
sorry I didn't mean to imply that I thought he was Iraqi.
At the end of the day, there is turning a blind eye, ignorance and someone falsifying documents.
I'll bet that most, if not all, football teams did not check if each player may have a different record.
Qatar asked for a birth certificate, they asked for it to be authenticated, there was no objection at the time from the Brazilian government so how could Qatar know?
Point is, as soon as it came to light, Qatar reacted swiftly.
I'm unsure if you are 'aware' of this dweller, but ALL players that want to play have to go through FIFA approval BEFORE the matches. Even FIFA didn't find a problem.
__________________________
Mr. Q's Blog - A Qatari's View (My view on Qatar).
I don't think this is a case of ignorance of a player's status.
As I understand it, the QFA checked Emerson's status and found that he was eligible to play for Qatar. The reason he appeared to be eligible is because he had fake documentation.
So should football associations be held accountable for an illegal act committed by the player? Should they not only be responsible for checking documentation, but also checking the authenticity of it?
This is why FIFA should release a full statement about the incident, so everyone understands why the QFA were not held accountable.
that Kuwait fielded an over age player in an under 21 or under 19 match some years ago and that this came to light only after the match. Kuwait were banned internationally for some time and were kicked out of the tournament.
To plead ignorance of a player's status should not be allowed as an excuse.
I agree with what you say about the Emerson fiasco. However, he makes a good point when he says that Football fans the world over are owed a better explanation than the Qatar FA was "not responsible" for the Emerson affair. If FIFA came out and explained how the QFA are "not responsible" it would clear up a lot of doubts.
As for the other points, he's merely highlighting some of the issues that have raised suspicion among the footballing community. Whether they're utter rubbish or not, they're still the sort of thing that conspiracy theories thrive on!
btw, I think the author of the article is an Australian, not an Iraqi.
That is just utter rubbish!
the Qatar FA was asked to ensure that the players were fine and they did just that. At NO point is it NORMAL to ensure that your players have falsified their passports and birth certificates, and as soon as it WAS brought to Qatar's attention, they pulled him out!
His arguments are so stupid!
A referee was born in Qatar but lived in the Emirates all his lief and IS Emiratee, so he must have been helping Qatar?
Then he goes on about a consipiracy about the Qatar Iraq match. I'm guessing he's thinking Qatar paid Iraq to lose. Which the thought of is just stupid.
Then he says that Bahrain is helping out Qatar. Two countries who are pure rivals when it comes to sport.
It's just sore loser.
If he doesn't like the rules, he should play a different game.
__________________________
Mr. Q's Blog - A Qatari's View (My view on Qatar).
Plenty of teams have been punished in the past.
Guilty is Guilty at the end of the day.
Its probably best not to comment though.