Eight-year suspension, so the sanction chosen by the Ethics Committee of FIFA against Michel Platini and Sepp Blatter. A major penalty but below that of banishment for life hitherto mentioned. And for good reason … The facts of corruption were ultimately not retained by the Committee in its final judgment. Faced with the offsets of the era Blatter, FIFA did not go to the end of its possibilities, certainly for legal reasons.
“ Corruption is an exception to the inalienable nature of the facts ,” said Simon Le Reste, a lawyer practicing in Paris and a doctorate in sports law. On this ground, a case can still be considered, regardless of the precedence of the facts. On the contrary, “ on the character of conflict of interest, FIFA could sanction only the infringements dating back to last ten years. Do not hold the corruption qualifier indirectly allows FIFA to not have to leave ancient but still sensitive issues such as the allocation of previous World Cups. ”
“ By retaining corruption, the facts normally prescribed could be debated on appeal, possibly before the CAS or the Swiss Federal Court, continues Simon Le Reste. There was a new risk of large unpacking before domestic courts and external to FIFA. “While accusations of bribe wine for the award of the 1998 World Cup in France and 2006 in Germany have already been revealed, FIFA could have been shaken by new instructions driven by the record Platini – Blatter.
“ By simply holding the conflict of interest, the trial chamber limits debate since different remedies do not normally deal of corruption and therefore prescribed facts ” bury Simon Le Reste. Platini and Blatter see more modestly blame the same facts: “abuse of position” and “conflict of interest”. They thus escape the heaviest sanction possible because FIFA has protected itself and possible slippages. Not certain that Michel Platini, virtually out of the running for the head of the International Federation, to rejoice in.
No comments:
Post a Comment