Editorial | JFF and good governance

In all probability, Rudolph Speid is a good and decent man who doesn’t drink, swear, carouse, lie or anything untoward or unethical to advance his own interest at the expense of others. He might even wear a halo.

But that doesn’t mean that Mr Speid can’t, even unwittingly, become entangled in a conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof, contrary to the ideals of good governance, with the potential to erode public trust and confidence in institutions to which he is affiliated. Which might now be the case.

Mr Speid, a qualified accountant, is the principal and sporting director of Jamaica’s Cavalier Football Club, which has won honours in the domestic football league and in regional competitions. He is a former president of the Kingston and St Andrew Football Association (KSAFA) and has held various positions in the Jamaica Football Federation (JFF), including currently, membership on the board and chairman of its technical committee.

In the past, KSAFA, Mr Speid’s old organisation, has raised conflict of interest questions about Mr Speid’s leadership of the JFF’s technical committee, but generally there have been few public complaints about the issue.

What has now ignited significant controversy in football circles, and elsewhere, is Mr Speid’s recent appointment as technical advisor to Steve McLaren, the Englishman who is head coach of Jamaica’s national men’s football team, the Reggae Boyz. Mr Speid, it appears, will retain his position on the JFF board, continue his chairmanship of its technical committee and, critically, continue, simultaneously, to hold all his positions with Cavalier – including as coach.

“What we are trying to do is to strengthen the technical aspects of our programme,” said Michael Ricketts, the president of the JFF.

The federation’s board, Mr Ricketts said, took the decision against Mr Speid’s success with KSAFA domestically and regionally, and given that Jamaica’s future matches to qualify for next year’s Football World Cup are against Caribbean teams. Mr Ricketts pushed back against claims that the appointment raised potential conflict of interest questions because Mr Speid wouldn’t be remunerated.

“It is not a concern because he isn’t being paid,” Mr Ricketts said.

Which suggests that neither Mr Ricketts nor his JFF directors (we assume Mr Speid recused himself from the discussions) have thought deeply, or have thought at all, about issues of governance, or what might constitute conflict of interest and why it matters. It is an issue that should also concern Mr Speid.

Essentially, a conflict of interest situation is where a person, a group of people or an institution is faced with competing loyalties or interests that could compromise the objectivity of their decision-making. This, then, impinges on integrity and ethics.

These conflicts might be the tensions between, say, an individual’s personal financial interests and his fiduciary obligations, or his personal and professional responsibilities. So, the secretary of a cricket club who becomes head scout for the national selectors might be assumed to favour players from his club, raising a potential conflict of interest.

That cricket club secretary may be a person of the highest integrity, who couldn’t be tempted into bias. But the fact that the potential exists, and where a clear and transparent cure isn’t immediately apparent, is often sufficient for ethicists and courts, to advise, or rule against, people who find themselves in these situations.

The JFF may have found a way to insulate Mr Speid against real or perceived bias or conflict of interest. He may have taken a leave of absence from Cavalier, or is using some other transparent mechanism, of which the public will be advised, that creates an arms-length relationship between his roles at his football club and that as Mr McLaren’s technical adviser.

It is surprising that Mr McLaren, who is from the highest echelons of British football, has, according to Mr Ricketts, no unease with Mr Speid’s appointment.

Mr McLaren would be aware of the deep controversy that enveloped the Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL) – whose directors are officials of the major clubs – over claims of manipulating rules governing the transfer of the young players from academies for their own interests, and at the expense of the youngsters.

The issue of good governance and transparency isn’t only for politics. It is relevant in the management of sports, companies, schools and elsewhere. And potential conflict and bias aren’t obviated solely by the fact that someone isn’t paid. And even the appearance of bias is often a matter of concern.