Burrell ban deserved but ...

FIFA was dead right in handing out the bans it did on Captain Horace Burrell and all those CFU heads who were at that ill-fated meeting in Trinidad. Indeed, the Ethics Committee had little choice. What went on at that meeting was clearly a breach of FIFA rules.

For those who disagree, go to the FIFA code of ethics. Rule 10 speaks to "accepting and giving gifts and other benefits". Clause 1: "Officials are not permitted to accept gifts and other benefits that exceed the average relative value of local cultural customs from any third parties." That could be seen as legalese that only lawyers can understand, but Rule 10 went further, not leaving the issue in doubt. "Accepting gifts of cash in any amount or form is prohibited!"

By urging CFU executives to take the envelopes stuffed with US$40,000 from bin Hammam, Jack Warner was, therefore, clearly encouraging them to break FIFA law. Whether or not Captain Burrell was among those who took the money is not the issue here. At this point, the Ethics Committee doesn't seem to have evidence that he did.

But not accepting the money doesn't absolve Captain. We go back to the FIFA code of ethics, Rule 14. The heading is 'Duty of disclosure and reporting'. "Officials shall report any evidence of violations of conduct to the FIFA secretary general who shall report it to the competent body." Note the use of the word 'shall', not 'may'. This means that Captain Burrell, and indeed all the others, were obligated to report what was a clear case of 'violation of conduct' to the relevant authorities. That they didn't do so was a clear breach.

Captain Burrell has got his just deserts. He couldn't escape sanction for not cooperating with investigators. He knows that, which is why he didn't, and couldn't, appeal.

Betray a friend?

But before we launch into our holier-than-thou persona, and before the anti-Burrell machinery gets into full gear, let me put this controversy into perspective. Let's be practical, not emotional. What really could he have done at that meeting? What really were his choices?

Do we honestly believe that Captain Burrell could have lived with himself had he written to FIFA, spilling the beans about Jack Warner and other CFU members? Jack is one of the reasons why Captain Burrell has made great strides in the not-so-hallowed halls of FIFA.

Captain Burrell is a hard worker, and his achievements with Jamaica would have made him respected in world football anyway. But having friends in high places can only work to one's benefit, and there is no doubt that his closeness, real or imagined, with Jack benefited Captain Burrell.

Did we really expect Captain Burrell, if he was aware, to write to FIFA that Jack was involved in unethical practices?

Loyalty is huge to most of us. Not too many of us would rat out our boss to his superiors, especially if this is a boss who has done well for the company and who has the best interests of his workers at heart. It would be also difficult for Captain Burrell to expose his fellow CFU delegates. Whistle-blowing against one's co-workers, in a manner of speaking, many of them friends, is no minor battle. Remember that there was a CFU election coming up at which Burrell was the clear front-runner, and his immediate political fortunes could be decided by these same people who FIFA wanted him to report.

He would look good in the eyes of FIFA, and earn plaudits from some of us who would speak platitudes about how principled he is. But had he done so, he would have been ostracised by his own - for life. How many of us would be prepared to do that?

Even as the saga just began to unfold, Captain held firm that he neither saw nor knew of any evil. By doing so, he apparently didn't speak the whole truth. He didn't want to be the man responsible for shattering the image and reputation of several Caribbean football dignitaries. It may have been wrong, but entirely understandable. Yes, Captain Burrell was guilty, but he was guilty with a darn good explanation.

The more interesting issue for me is who is the person who shot the amateur footage that eventually became the final nail for the CFU delegates? Who was he working for? What did he hope to gain? Did he do it for free, or did he receive ... a bribe?!

Think on these things. More anon.

Orville Higgins is a sportscaster. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.