When Armando Marques (Brazilian, one of the candidates to referee the final of the World Cup in 1974) was overlooked in favour of another referee, he was furious. He called the organisation of the refs at that tournament shameful, and declared "the committee is officially composed of nine members, but [in reality] everything is decided by three people - Aston, the Austrian Seipelt and [José María] Codesal". Marques would have had more chance this time round.
After the assignments for the first two days of matches at this World Cup were released, there are no prizes for guessing who the three powerful men of Qatar 2022 are. Even by FIFA's standards however, the politics has become particuarly brazen this time round.
I was really disappointed yesterday and genuinely quite shocked reading the assignments - though the sight of FIFA Media racing to beat Arbitro Internacional to posting at least one appointment so far did put raise a smile. It is not that Raphael Claus, Wilton Pereira Sampaio or Abdulrahman Al-Jassim are bad referees - indeed, they are all quite competent officials - but the co-ordination of the first four matches as a package really sat quite uneasily with me indeed. One can easily guess the price of the Italians forcing through Orsato for the opening game was to give some other people what they wanted.
Who am I talking about? Well, let's take a look at whom FIFA have listed as committee members:
How the politics used to work was probably a bit different. Having a referees committee member, or even a member of the executive committee, 'looking after you' was enough to get you on the quasi 'pre-selected list' (FIFA made a lot of noise after 2002 and indeed it got much better, but this process de facto already existed since road to 1986). You'd attend the Youth World Cups, and be in with a decent shot at selection if those went well. This was the real advantage. I'm not sure that this system was really that satisfying, eg. you could be an excellent referee from a smaller CAF/AFC country, and the likelihood is that you'd never have gotten a look-in, but I guess FIFA accepted that they couldn't watch every single match going.
I don't want to be too much of a gloom-bearer, but this is how refereeing works. Jozef Marko being on the UEFA committee from the mid-1990s allowed him to 'create' the excellent referee Ľuboš Micheľ, Vladimir Šajn from the mid-noughties allowed him develop excellent Damir Skomina, Reidar Bjørnestad (RIP :/) for Pedersen and then Hauge - and so on. This is how refereeing works, it is a simple fact of life, it is how (in theory) excellent referees from countries not in focus could never get past the third category. (And it is also how smaller countries are so receptive to Rosetti's - "I'll give your guy a chance"; of course, UEFA have no real plans for them (or anything really), but the promise sounds good!).
Anyway, in my judgement, once the World Cup started, while of course having 'someone on your side' was beneficial (see Bouzo and Al-Sharif repeatedly being allowed to destroy games), the committee did work to at least appear relatively fair. Never, ever, did we have such a chaotic start where the tournament will be intiated by only officials from the three most 'favourable' countries from the committee's perspective. It is a remarkably regressive step (I can't recall such a bad one since 1978 final choices) at a tournament which -- according to the mainstream media's narrative anyway -- is the most progressive ever for the refs. A thought: could those two even be linked?
Who am I talking about? Well, let's take a look at whom FIFA have listed as committee members:
Pierluigi COLLINA (chairman)
Hany Taleb AL RAEESI (vice-chairman)
An Yan LIM KEE CHONG
Dagmar DAMKOVA
Eddy MAILLET
Enrique CACERES
Kevin STOLTENKAMP
Michelle PYE
Neil POLOSO
Nicola RIZZOLI
Roberto ROSETTI
Shamsul MAIDIN
Wilson SENEME
No offence to Neil Poloso, the former assistant referee from the Soloman Islands whom on his social media platforms seems more interested in talking about banal 'EPL' matters than actual refereeing stuff, but it is obvious that some of the people listed will have more power and influence than him. If you guessed that Pierluigi Collina (with his two Italians in tow), Hany Taleb Ballan Al-Raeesi and Wilson Seneme are the men really calling the shots, then you'd be spot on. By the way - that is completely normal, there are more 'involved' people on any commission than others, it is how such things work. But even for a seasoned, cynical World Cup refs observer, what they did in 2022 was quite extra-ordinary.
 |
| WC2006's Shamsul Maidin is on the committee this time |
How the politics used to work was probably a bit different. Having a referees committee member, or even a member of the executive committee, 'looking after you' was enough to get you on the quasi 'pre-selected list' (FIFA made a lot of noise after 2002 and indeed it got much better, but this process de facto already existed since road to 1986). You'd attend the Youth World Cups, and be in with a decent shot at selection if those went well. This was the real advantage. I'm not sure that this system was really that satisfying, eg. you could be an excellent referee from a smaller CAF/AFC country, and the likelihood is that you'd never have gotten a look-in, but I guess FIFA accepted that they couldn't watch every single match going.
I don't want to be too much of a gloom-bearer, but this is how refereeing works. Jozef Marko being on the UEFA committee from the mid-1990s allowed him to 'create' the excellent referee Ľuboš Micheľ, Vladimir Šajn from the mid-noughties allowed him develop excellent Damir Skomina, Reidar Bjørnestad (RIP :/) for Pedersen and then Hauge - and so on. This is how refereeing works, it is a simple fact of life, it is how (in theory) excellent referees from countries not in focus could never get past the third category. (And it is also how smaller countries are so receptive to Rosetti's - "I'll give your guy a chance"; of course, UEFA have no real plans for them (or anything really), but the promise sounds good!).
Anyway, in my judgement, once the World Cup started, while of course having 'someone on your side' was beneficial (see Bouzo and Al-Sharif repeatedly being allowed to destroy games), the committee did work to at least appear relatively fair. Never, ever, did we have such a chaotic start where the tournament will be intiated by only officials from the three most 'favourable' countries from the committee's perspective. It is a remarkably regressive step (I can't recall such a bad one since 1978 final choices) at a tournament which -- according to the mainstream media's narrative anyway -- is the most progressive ever for the refs. A thought: could those two even be linked?
 |
| Today I am a nepotistic referees committee member |
When you analyse the choices for opening games in past World Cups, mostly you will see some effort to balance the confederations a bit. I'm sure that people like Sepp Blatter, an extremely relevant person in refereeing (probably much more so than you currently think), put a lot of pressure on committee members to deliver a politically satisfying result - the key issue for him was giving oppotunities to 'CAF' and 'AFC' members so he wouldn't be ejected as FIFA president. Indeed, the reason why the most chaotic World Cup internally until now (2002 in the Far East) was so, owes to Blatter deliberately weakening the committee as he had 'favours to repay' after his controversial re-election in that spring. They argued about all the appointments and the final absurdity, Ragoonath to the quarterfinal, had the known consequences.
We know that Infantino's focus now is less on the confederational balancing, and more onlosing the plot in press conferences pushing the case for female representation and giving a positive image of FIFA to the irritatingly (and I'd argue malevolently) unquestioning mainstream media. This games the committee members a kind of 'unique freedom' so long as they satisfy this demand, and that is how we can end up with an Italo-Brazilian-Qatari opening of the World Cup. The trend should be well-known to one of the committee members too - let Čeferin do what he wants, and a carte blanche for the rest. The funniest thing about all this is that Arbitro Internacional reported that Seneme arrived late in Qatar, from a instruction session he was hosting in South America. Perhaps this is is the definition of being fashionably late! :D
We know that Infantino's focus now is less on the confederational balancing, and more on
Of course, it should be acknowledged that there are some balancing elements (for instance CAF VMO crew for Al-Jassim), but really not much at all. And it is not like those four referes of games one to four are at the top either. Orsato is, but the fitness concerns are legitimate; and Claus, Sampaio, Al-Jassim are absolutely not eg. Rapallini, Tello, Shukralla. But there we are.
Therefore: those who might speak of something like a 'Brave New World' and new era for refereeing at this World Cup are absolutely correct, but I'm quite sure they don't really grasp the reasons for which they are right...
Let's hope the tournament and the assigning process returns to a more stable mode from here on. Good luck to all officials at the tournament, but a special mention for the third team (so appropriate for this WC ;)) of Qatar vs. Ecuador, the opening game played this afternoon.
All the best from us here at Law5 for a good match!
Finally, a nice video to end on - small feature by the BBC here on the refs training at the World Cup, featuring interviews with a few referees too:
Please i need Armando marques story in details in wc 1974 final Mikael
ReplyDeleteWC 1974 was the transition tournament between Rous and Havelange, so compromises had to be made to accomodate both. Marques had a chance owing to Havelange, but in the end the Brazilian didn't throw his weight behind his compatriot. The committee tentatively agreed that Davidson would ref, and told him so on a train journey, and the Scotsman began leaking this to the Scottish media. However, the decision wasn't finally taken, in the end the Rous/Aston complex manage to get Taylor as the referee. As Davidson had leaked, FIFA were quite embarrased about this, so invented the reason that the Scots ref was punished for not informing Tschenscher about an off-the-ball VC in NEDBRA, but it was a made-up reason, FIFA just created sth to hide that they'd changed idea. For Havelange's compensation, he got the best South American (Barreto) as one linesman, and rewarded Guillermo Cañedo for lobbying him to be president, with Benito's father (González Archundia) as the second 'AR'. At his first of three WCs, Palotai completed the team as reserve referee. Both Marques and Davidson were disgusted, the latter not even watching the final in Munich and going home instead. The third place playoff was the usual macedoine of rather token appmnts to keep everyone happy.
DeleteIn 1974 was barretto the best south American referee not marquez
DeleteI think so, he was very highly regarded back then (eg. German derby appmnt).
DeleteBut I'm not a huge expert on 70s refereeing! :)
But Brazil in the third bronze medal match in wc 1974 so that not marquez in this match and Italian refereed this match
DeleteYes, Barreto Ruiz was the best ref in the 1970s. His fitness, stamina and understanding let him use the advantage rule to perfection, while other refs just whistled in order to breathe and get closer to the action. He was in charge of the 1976 Olympics Final, and the only person to officiate twice in a WC Final (1974, 1978). He was a linesman on both occasions. As many other "men in the middle", he was less than mediocre as a linesman (as they were called then), ruling Gerd Muller offside (he never was), hence cancelling a third German goal in the 1974 Final.
DeleteFrankly speaking, I cannot follow your argumentation this time:
ReplyDeleteGiven that the opener between Qatar and Ecuador is one of the few games between Non-UEFA countries, I would also have selected a European referee: Both Orsato and his VAR team headed by Irrati are very experienced and (expected to be) safe pairs of hands - a completely understandable appointment in my opinion.
As to the other three games: Neither of them is extremely sonorous in my eyes. The Qatari, for example, was appointed for USA - Wales and not for Argentina - Mexico or Germany - Spain. I really do not see the problem in their early appointments (with the consequence that we therefore will not see them again for a couple of days).
Exactly my thoughts.
DeleteProbably you are too rational for FIFA, Peter! The opening games are a very big deal internally and fought over as such (see the recency principle). Just think about how much you remember Nishimura's mistake in 2014 or the opening games of a WC tournament generally compared to the 'middle' GS games - that should explain it. Collina but also Seneme, Al-Raeesi would have seen getting their guys on these fixtures as a huge coup. I'd say they are akin to R16 appointments in terms of stature, and maybe even close or above those two group clashes you mentioned, honestly.
Delete@Mikael W:
DeleteWhich referee team would you have preferred over Orsato/Irrati? The Polish? The Slovenian? Maybe, one can discuss whether for example Rapallini would have been another suitable CONMEBOL option for the early stages - but as we know: Also Argentinians can definitely not blame FIFA for being underpriviliged.
Vinčić would have been my choice, but I don't find Orsato's selection especially problematic.
DeleteNor do I find the appointments of:
- Claus to ENGIRN
- Sampaio to SENNED
- nor Al-Jassim to USAWAL
... as inconcievable *isolatedly*, on their own, as singular appmnts.
But taking all four appointments as a PACKAGE, this is very irritating - Collina, Seneme, Seneme, Al-Raeesi. I understand that people don't agree with me, that's fine/good(!), but is the nuance of my argument not clear?
Is the current appointment situation really that bad? I totally understand your concerns and it looks weird to have two Brazilians in a row for example, but on the other hand a weak performance by one of the first referees could cost them more appointments or knockout stage matches. And additionally none of the first four matches is a great clash, at least not from a common football fan and media perspective (yes, I know, that the opener ist special).
ReplyDeleteOK, I can agree the concerns for the opening match due to the increased audience. But really I cannot understand the criticism for the other 3 appointments. I think that we have to wait to all appointments for the group phase and then to evaluate the decisions for the ref who will be selected for the knock out crucial games.
ReplyDeleteLets wish the best decisions to all officials !!!
I find the politics disappointing as well. But I've watched closely Claus and Sampaio this year.
ReplyDeleteYou'll probably be amazed with Sampaio's awesome "keep up with play" skills in "overdrive mode." This has been his best year, by far.
Claus takes a more passive approach which can be irritating at times. After very good and dependable seasons, he looked bored at times this year, seemingly in "neutral mode" – sort of waiting for the WC, as noted by 1982 WC finalist Arnaldo Cezar Coelho.
So I'm curious about which Claus will show up tomorrow – this year's or past years' but expect Sampaio to move swiftly through the tournament towards, say, a QF.
ARG - KSA Vincic
ReplyDeleteExcellent discussion on the politics in referee appointments for major tournaments. All to give some people what they wanted with respect to their personal, confederation or FA. Keep up the great work Mikael.
ReplyDelete