Using Sport to Teach Statistics

The NYT has a neat article on college professors who use sport as a basis for teaching statistics.  here is an excerpt:

While traditional what-if situations involving dice rolls and poker hands remain a staple, sports offers dozens of real-life games every day that generate scads of data begging to be examined. Flipping a coin twice is a mundane thought experiment; having Steve Nash of the Phoenix Suns attempt two free throws with a game on the line is like watching ESPN in the classroom.

One student says:

“It’s a major reason I’m here in the class at all,” said Micah Barbour, a freshman planning to major in political science. “I love sports and sports is all about statistics. I’ve never had an opportunity where a class can take something and make it so real-life. It’s cool to finally have fun in math.”

I may have to develop such a class myself!

You can take a quiz to test your statistical knowledge here.

Are "Student-Athletes" Employees?

McCormick and McCormick (2005, PDF) say, yes, obviously:

Abstract: Grant-in-aid athletes in revenue-generating sports at Division I National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) institutions are not “student-athletes” as the NCAA asserts, but are, instead, “employees” under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). To be an employee under that Act, these athletes must meet both the common law test and a statutory test applicable to university students. In applying the common law test to athletes, we describe their daily lives through interviews with current and former Division I grant-in aid athletes. These interviews demonstrate that their daily burdens and obligations not only meet the legal standard of employee, but far exceed the burdens and obligations of most university employees. In addressing the statutory definition of the term employee, we demonstrate that the relationship between these athletes and their universities is not primarily academic, but is, instead, undeniably commercial. As employees under the NLRA, these athletes are entitled “to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” Consequently, they will be able to acquire bargaining power through collective association and to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment, including wages not arbitrarily limited to the level of athletic scholarships.

This hard-hitting paper concludes:

To call NCAA Division I athletes in revenue-generating sports amateurs is farcical. The NCAA’s droning insistence on labeling them student-athletes” is done simply to shore up the fiction that they are something other than employees. NCAA rules, promulgated by the university-employers themselves, bar these athletes from earning compensation representing their true worth. Unaware of their market value, constrained by NCAA strictures, and raised in the myth of the student-athlete, they enter into servitude by the thousands every year. Thus, this fiction has worked to convince even the players themselves to bask in the bright, but brief, glow of their status as campus heroes, and has nurtured their unrealistic dreams of glory, obscuring the reality of their exploitation.

The power of myth is undeniable.406 It has served the economic interests of the NCAA and many other participants in major college sports richly. But the power of the law is also great, and a society that respects the law looks through the myth and the propaganda to facts. The rule of law eschews a “tyranny of labels”407 and seeks truth. And the truth is that these athletes are employees under the law.

I agree.

Andrew Jennings Visits the Brazilian Senate

Jens Weinreich has the full text and images from Andrew Jennings (pictured above at PTG 2011) recent testimony before the Education, Culture and Sports Committee of the Brazilian Senate. Play the Game has a nice summary here.

Here is how Jennings begins, and you should read the whole testimony:

Good morning. Thank you for your invitation.

I have been an investigative reporter for 45 years. I research and acquire confidential documents.

Then I write books and articles and make investigation films for the BBC.

I have been investigating FIFA for 10 years.

I have considerable experience in investigating organised crime and I can assure you that FIFA ticks all the boxes in the academic definition of an Organised Crime Family.

Today I want to tell you about the latest corruption crisis at FIFA and how it will impact on the 2014 World Cup.

But first – Meet some of the members of FIFA’s 23-man Executive Committee.

Jennings has some pretty remarkable material. Here is a Brazilian new report on Jennings' testimony.

FIFA to Investigate Makudi

FIFA has announced that it will open an investigation of Worawi Makudi, chairman of the Football Association of Thailand (I first discussed Makudi here).  From the BBC:

FiFifa says Thai football boss Worawi Makudi will face a formal investigation by its ethics committee unless he provides proof by 1 December he did not misuse $860,000 (£535,000) of football development funding.

Thailand FA president and Fifa executive committee member Makudi is accused of using money for football projects on land that he personally owns, an allegation he denies. . .

Makudi would be the sixth senior Fifa executive to face an ethics hearing since October 2010 if he is unable to provide Fifa with the information it has demanded. It is understood he would face charges in connection with a possible breach of section five of the organisation's code of ethics.

Section Five is the slim part on "conflicts of interest" that I highlighted earlier this week, and it is presently getting quite a workout. At what point does FIFA need to take action with respect to its Executive Committee?

With six members facing formal investigations and numerous others accused of corruption, does the Committee loose its legitimacy at some point?  Has it already? Can it oversee Seep Blatter's reform process? I suppose that we shall soon learn the answers to the questions, simply as a practical matter.

UK Parliament: FIFA Should be Investigated

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee of the UK Parliament has called for a full investigation of FIFA's governance, particularly as related to Lord Treisman's allegations earlier this year:

. . . the committee is still concerned that no apparent effort was made by FIFA to investigate these allegations when they were put to it, and that other allegations - specifically those made by Lord Triesman in evidence to the committee - remain.

Since it was Lord Treisman who levied the allegations, then how about the UK Parliament opening an investigation?  Recommendations offered in the passive voice usually don't get too far.

Lord Triesman's testimony from last May can be found below.

ESPN and College Football Realignment

USA Today asks some uncomfortable questions:

For all that ESPN has lent to the growth of major-college athletics — through on-air exposure and with rights-fees payouts that schools have fed into stadium improvements, luxurious locker rooms and huge contracts for top coaches — there's an undercurrent of concern about the influence of the self-proclaimed Worldwide Leader in Sports.

It's not just that its tentacles are everywhere: They're everywhere at once.

As a TV rights holder, ESPN is a business partner to a wide array of conferences and schools (its total college outlay will average more than $700 million annually by next year).

And as a leading broadcast, print and online news outlet, ESPN also reports the news it's often a party to making.

"We've created … I was going to say a blurry line, but I don't think there is any line anymore as to who's in charge," says Andy Geiger, a former athletics director at Ohio State University.

"We're doing business with an entertainment company whose only way of surviving involves the number of eyeballs watching the screen," he says. "That is the driving force in what I see as all the decisions being made."

Realignment is here to stay:

Others see it differently. UConn President Susan Herbst, on the landscape a few weeks ago: "One of the things I think we're all resigned to is that regionalism is pretty much over. In terms of stability and finding the best institutions that fit, that you want to play, you have to go pretty far beyond where you ever thought. And that's OK. I think most of us are settled with it. Football, it's a little easier because you only go to a far away place every other year and they come to you every other year. … The world is flat. I think we've all come to see that college athletics is like telecommunications or political organizing or any of the kind of dynamic institutions that used to be very regional. It's a national activity."

NCAA President Mark Emmert said last month of the variety of plans being discussed, "These are all living social science experiments."

A social science experiment, one might add, heavily focused on economics.

A Great Opportunity for FIFA to Display its New Approach to Transparency

Writing at the Sunday Guardian Jesse Fink says:

Now here's something. While FIFA swells its chest and promises the world it's changing its ways with a raft of new reforms carrying the imprimatur of Transparency International, it sells the Asian TV rights to a company run by Philippe Blatter, the nephew of FIFA president Sepp Blatter.

Fink suggests that transparency might help, and suggests some of the information that FIFA should make public:

So what made Infront the winning bid for Asia? Will we ever know? Will FIFA release the tender documents that substantiate Ericson's claim that it was the "best package"?

It's a perfect opportunity for FIFA to show just how transparent it is but don't hold your breath.

Transparency International must be feeling the sting of having FIFA invoke its good name in support of its actions. The BBC reports that TI also sees the Infront deal as not particularly consistent with good governance and has also called for greater openness with information:

Fifa announced yesterday it had appointed Infront Sports and Media to handle the sale of World Cup TV rights in a number of Asian countries for the 2018 and 2022 tournaments.

But they failed to disclose the president of Infront is Philippe Blatter, the Fifa president's nephew.

The announcement came a week after Fifa set out a two-year plan, working closely with Transparency International to reform the organisation following a series of damaging corruption scandals.

Sylvia Schenk, the author of Transparency International's damning report on Fifa, told the BBC that even if Sepp Blatter played no part in the decision to award the contract, it raised questions again about the governing body's lack of accountability.

She said: "When you have a situation where two relatives are in leading positions in two companies which agree a significant contract, it is of utmost importance for Fifa to be as transparent as possible regarding the decision-making process and Sepp Blatter's involvement in that decision.

"Given the situation Fifa is in right now, it would be better for Fifa to be more pro-active with their information where there could be a perception of a conflict of interest."

For its part, FIFA explains that its Finance Committee made the recommendation of Infront which was ratified by its Executive Committee (pictured at the top of this post). Sepp Blatter chairs the executive committee.  FIFA clearly saw this as problematic because in a statement to the BBC FIFA explained that specific actions were taken based on this apparent conflict of interest:

"The Fifa president is not a member of the finance committee and was not present when the decision was made. The Fifa president did not take part in any meetings or discussions and was not involved in the tender process."

 The 2009 FIFA Code of Ethics has this brief section on Conflicts of Interest (PDF):

1. Before being elected or appointed, officials shall disclose any personal interests that could be linked with their prospective function.

2. While performing their duties, officials shall avoid any situation that could lead to conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest arise if officials have, or appear to have, private or personal interests that detract from their ability to perform their duties as officials with integrity in an independent and purposeful manner. Private or personal interests include gaining any possible advantage for himself, his family, relatives, friends and acquaintances.

3. Officials may not perform their duties in cases with an existing or potential conflict of interest. Any such conflict shall be immediately disclosed and notified to the organisation for which the official performs his duties.

4. If an objection is made concerning an official’s existing or potential conflict of interest, it shall be reported immediately to the organisation for which the official performs his duties.

5. The deciding authority of the relevant organisation shall decide on such conflicts of interest.

Given the vagueness of these guidelines, it does appear that transparency is the only way that FIFA begins to gain some credibility. Consider that the chair of its Ethics Committee stands accused of bribery, a charge that he refutes the chair of the Finance Committee is under investigation for bribery, which he also refutes, and Sepp Blatter is the chairman of the Executive Committee which makes final decisions for FIFA, including those on conflicts of interest (as far as I can tell from the vacuous guidelines reproduced above). One might be forgiven for thinking that the entire governance structure is compromised from top to bottom.

In such a circumstance, as Fink argues above, the Infront case provides a perfect case for FIFA to operate under a full disclosure -- of both its internal governance mechanisms as well as its decision making process that resulted in a company headed by its President being awarded a substantial contract.

While it is unclear what FIFA is going to do, an interesting subplot that is developing is the relationship of Transparency International to FIFA.  Something is going to have to give in one of the two organizations.

Add Neoptism Rules to the List of Needed FIFA Reforms

One week ago Sepp Blatter spoke about the need for FIFA to undergo serious governance reform.  Here is what FIFA did this week:

FIFA said it also chose Swiss-based agency Infront Sports and Media in a tender process to handle sales across 26 Asian territories including China and India.

"Infront offered the best package for this important and very complex project both in financial as well as marketing aspects," Niclas Ericson, FIFA's director of television, said in a statement released by Infront.

Infront has long been scrutinized by FIFA's critics.

The Zug-based agency has close connections to FIFA's discredited former marketing partner ISL, which went bankrupt in 2001 and is once more at the center of allegations regarding kickbacks paid to senior FIFA officials in the 1990s.

Infront has been led since 2006 by Philippe Blatter, now its president and chief executive, who is a nephew of FIFA President Sepp Blatter.

The Infront deal may indeed be perfectly legitimate, but absent practices of "good governance" it is impossible for an outsider to tell, which cedes the territory to FIFA's critics (e.g. here in PDF).

For most organizations, nepotism is generally not viewed favorably as a characteristic of "good governance." FIFA take note.

Damian Collins MP on FIFA in the House of Commons

The discussion starts at 17:11:22.and continues to 17:20:00.

Here is a link to the text of Mr. Collins' remarks on FIFA and the subsequent exchange:

Baseball is Also a Beautiful Game

Source: FanGraphs

Nine Athletic Directors Ask NCAA for Reform

UPDATE 10/28: In the comments Rodney Fort (Thanks!) points out that the signatories of the letter aren't all ADs and provides affiliations and titles:

Bowlsby AD at Stanford
Littlepage AD at Virginia
Turner AD at the University of Washington
Jennstedt--Exec VP @ NCAA
Kretchmar--Faculty and Athletics Rep to the NCAA and editor of the Journal of Intercollegiate Sport @ Penn State.
LeCrone--Horizon League Commissioner
Orleans--Exec Dir of the Ivy League (retired)
Perko--Exec Dir at the Knight Commission
Waters--Retiring Sunbelt Commissioner

USA Today has reproduced a letter sent from nine leading athletic directors to Mark Emmert, chair of the NCAA, which calls for deeper NCAA reform.  Here is a link in PDF, and an excerpt:

Ongoing developments with regard to football-driven conference realignments, renegotiated television arrangements and more allegations of major rules violations all further emphasize the need for a fundamentally different value system and change of direction in Division I athletics – not simply for practical adjustments, however useful those adjustments may be.

Without a true focus on the underlying conditions that have produced our current problems, that system will continue to produce similar problems in the future. In contrast, as described in our earlier memorandum, we believe that truly re-connecting Division I athletics to our core values requires:

*A new governance approach that prioritizes those values over conference and institutional self-interest;
*Ending the fragmentation of Division I goals and governance that is inherent in the separate and dominant status of BCS football, so that it is clear to the public who is responsible for the integrated direction of college athletics;
*Providing an approach to finances that will sustain broad-based men’s and women’s athletics throughout Division I, consistent with institutions’ academic and other financial constraints and regardless of the sport in which specific revenues originate;
*Strongly recognizing student-athlete academic success in the distribution of NCAA and BCS national and conference revenues;
*Implementing simplified, consistent and effective rules and enforcement that clearly value integrity rather than merely compliance;
*Considering whether it may now be appropriate to treat student-athletes in “big-time” football differently from athletes in other sports, acknowledging that this would be a substantial change; and,
*In all these ways, establishing a national culture and incentive structure that will promote ethical behavior by institutions, coaches and student-athletes.

We realize that these and the other items outlined in our earlier communication provide summary statements of complicated problems. But with all due respect, in the context of the goals noted above we do not believe that the Board’s proposed agenda, courses of action, or consideration of outside views have been or will be adequate to the fundamental tasks at hand.

Especially interesting is that systems of governance in science are being considered as potential models for governance reform in college athletics:

“We talked about different ways to do what the NCAA says it wants to do, which is to make enforcement clear and more consistent, and more linked to [college sports'] underlying values,” Jeffrey H. Orleans, the former executive director of the Council of Ivy Group Presidents and one of the letter’s signatories, said in an interview on Wednesday. The federal government’s approach to policing itself offers a few clues on how this might be done: The Office of Research Integrity, for instance, investigates research misconduct at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, among other federal agencies.

That body, Orleans said, “is not the FBI, and it’s not the Department of Justice. It is a peer group in the sense that it’s made up of scientists, but they are the people who wind up considering disbarment from federal funds if there’s been some kind of research fraud.”

Orleans said he was not advocating for the NCAA to model itself entirely after the feds. But he does think the association ought to reconsider its current system. “We were looking for ways to deal with the inevitable tension that happens when an organization regulates itself,”  he added. “Peer judgment has its values, but sometimes it has its limits.”

I agree that models of governance for science and technology in universities have potential to offer lessons to reformed governance of athletics, as I wrote last summer.

Branch vs. Davis on College Sports

Last month I linked to a lengthy essay in The Atlantic by historian Taylor Branch on the NCAA.Branch was hard hitting and very critical. This week the NYT has profiled Branch in glowing terms and the article has received considerable praise from many quarters.

But not everywhere.  At Sports Illustrated Seth Davis takes on Branch in defense of the NCAA, here is an excerpt:

A lengthy article in an esteemed national publication criticizes the hypocrisies of college athletics. The author details a multitude of scandals involving seedy recruiting, nefarious boosters and academic fraud. The narrative winds to a damning conclusion: "[T]hanks to the influence of the colleges, there is growing up a class of students tainted with commercialism."

You might think I'm referring to the essay by Taylor Branch that was published last week in The Atlantic under the headline "The Shame Of College Sports." But I'm not. I'm actually referring to an article that appeared in the June 1905 edition of McClure's, a prestigious monthly academic journal. The two-part series, authored by a former Harvard football player named Henry Beach Needham, makes a compelling case that the enterprise of amateur athletics is doomed. In The Atlantic, Branch also writes that "scandal after scandal has rocked college sports," but while that phrase implies this is a recent trend, Needham shows us that it actually extends back more than a century.

I mention this as a counterweight to the prevailing conventional wisdom -- namely, that the publication of Branch's article is a landmark event that has skewered the NCAA's bogus amateurism model for good. The piece has certainly spurred much discussion. A post on The New Yorker's website deemed it a "watershed." Jeff MacGregor of ESPN.com suggested "a kind of cultural critical mass has finally been reached." Frank Deford called it "the most important article ever written about college sports." From NPR to MSNBC to Business Insider to every sport outlet in between, the story has been hailed as a slam-dunk, once-and-for-all indictment of the NCAA.

To be sure, Branch's article represents a brilliant piece of reporting, which is not surprising considering he won a Pulitzer Prize for his three-volume series on the American civil rights movement. Branch lays out in fascinating detail the structural and legal history of the NCAA that has led us to this point. However, when it comes to analysis, fairness and context, Branch's work leaves much to be desired. If there is a reasonable counter-argument to be made, Branch ignores it. If there is a fact that contradicts his conclusions, he omits it.

Branch has published a rejoinder, and here is an excerpt:

The nub of our dispute is over the general terms of service for college athletes. Davis says I overlook the fact that athletes are paid already with scholarship packages, while I say these in-kind benefits beg the fundamental question of whether the colleges and the athletes should be free to bargain for more or less.

To insist that athletic scholarships settle the compensation issue is like saying that any worker who gets medical coverage doesn’t need or deserve a salary. Worse, the NCAA demands adherence to this absurd standard by forbidding both sides to negotiate changes. Non-playing adults thus reserve to themselves all the wealth generated by college sports, whereas the NCAA punishes highly-valued athletes (famously the Georgia Bulldogs receiver A. J. Green last year) even for selling an old jersey.

Davis argues that scholarships are more than enough. (“If anything,” he writes, “most of these guys are overpaid.”) This is a convenient perspective for those who enjoy or benefit from the current structure, but that doesn’t make it fair. The NCAA’s unique amateur rules are imposed by private collusion of the colleges without sanction in law. College players, unlike Olympic athletes, are excluded from NCAA membership and from all rights of due process by the consortium that tries to govern them.

To me, the basics of genuine reform are simple. No college should be required to pay or not to pay students who play for them in any sport. Athletes should have the rights other citizens take for granted, and should be represented in every organization that depends upon their skill and devotion. We are the only country in the world that hosts professionalized sports at institutions of higher learning. There are profound questions about whether these two missions can or should coexist, but genuine education will not begin until we stop pretending that compensation itself makes college athletes “dirty.”

I invite Seth Davis to meet me in any verbal forum that can substitute for mid-court or the fifty-yard line. There we can trade questions and answers openly. He can cross-examine me on any argument or fact in my survey of college sports from the Civil War to Cam Newton. We may have fun, because the arena is inherently colorful and wondrous, but I will challenge him to declare his basic premise. Exactly how does he justify fastening amateurism on somebody else, and on college athletes alone? By what presumption must we all be satisfied that they are not earning too much? Here’s hoping that Davis and I can push forward in constructive debate.

I think I know who would win this debate.

Theater of the Absurd

USA Today reports on the latest goings on in college football realignment:

The theater of the absurd that is college football expansion got even more ridiculous Wednesday. After three U.S. senators, nine Big 12 Conference schools and one billionaire booster wrestled with whether West Virginia or Louisville should join the league, the result is expected to remain the same.

The New York Times provided the details on the squabbling among US senators:

Two other people with direct knowledge said that the lobbying of the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, had helped Louisville. His communication with Oklahoma’s president, David Boren, a former senator, and Texas Tech’s chancellor, Kent Hance, a former congressman, played a role in raising Louisville’s fortunes. Hance confirmed that McConnell called him to push Louisville.

Although West Virginia still has a chance to join the Big 12, news of Louisville’s emergence sent a shock through the state.

“If a United States senator has done anything inappropriate or unethical to interfere with a decision that the Big 12 had already made, then I believe that there should be an investigation in the U.S. Senate, and I will fight to get the truth,” Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, said in a statement. “West Virginians and the American people deserve to know exactly what is going on and whether politics is interfering with our college sports.”

Politics interfering with our college sports? Here is one response to that view:

University Spending on Athletes vs. Other Students

Universities with big time college sports programs have seen spending on athletes ("student-athletes" in the vernacular) increase at a much faster rate than academic spending on students as a whole:

Athletic programs in the Football Bowl Subdivision spent on athletes at a rate that far outpaced academic spending per student during a recent five-year period, according to new research reported by the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics.

Spending per athlete grew by 50 percent in the FBS during the five-year period, while academic spending per student increased by 22 percent . . .

It should not be a surprise that the NCAA proposal to increase support for student-athletes has faced some oppostion on campus:

Mike Martin, chancellor of Louisiana State University, said that faculties on many campuses are pushing back against excessive spending on sports. “I’ve got 1,400 faculty who would love to get $2,000 more a year, having gone four years without any pay raises,” he said. “We say athletes need the full cost of attendance, but you may not need the full cost of living.”

Eventually, universities will come to realize that tapping the untapped value of their "student-athletes" is in everyone's best interests. But they are not there yet.

Jens Sejer Andersen on FIFA Reform Process

Jens Sejer Andersen of Play the Game has written a hard hitting but very fair perspective on FIFA's proposed reforms. In addition, Andersen asks whether the role that Transparency International is playing is actually constructive.  Here is an excerpt:

In a very personal appeal the new communications director of FIFA, Walter di Gregorio, repeated the appeal to the media that he also brought to Play the Game 2011 lately: Give us credit, judge us by the facts.

That is a very legitimate claim. But it is up to FIFA to start providing facts instead of doing everything in its power to conceal and manipulate facts. At this stage we have heard so few new facts that there is no basis for renewing the judgments.

Time is running out for FIFA to be believed. Blatter gave a hint that the independent body which will perhaps be chosen to look at the ISL files will also be able to deal with other matters that FIFA’s own legal bodies cannot deal with.

We can only hope this hint will become reality “before the end of the year” as Blatter said.

No reform of FIFA will be successful if it is based on oppression of facts and attempts to push inconvenient stories into oblivion. The ghosts will return, sooner or later, if not exposed to daylight. 

So far, the fact you can derive from the press conference is that FIFA is singing the same refrain as it has done every time corruption charges have become too serious to ignore: Change will come. Once in the future. Commissions will work. Trust us.

Here is an idea, why not Lord Triesman on the FIFA Good Governance Committee?

FIFA's Good Governance Committee and Conflicts of Interest

Last Friday, FIFA announced that it was going to establish an "independent" and "transparent" advisory committee to guide its reform process -- the Good Governance Committee. Lucky for me and for FIFA, I happen to have some expertise in the empanelment of expert advisory committees.

A first thing to look for as FIFA establishes the committee will be to see if it enforces a conflict of interest policy for the panel. It would seem obvious that including individuals on the committee who have an employment, business or other formal relationship with FIFA or its member confederations would diminish the independence (perceived or actual) of the committee. Good governance procedures should start with the creation of the Good Governance Committee.

What is a conflict of interest?

The US National Academy of Sciences, which routinely empanels advisory committees, provides a useful definition (here in PDF):

It is essential that the work of committees of the institution used in the development of reports not be compromised by any significant conflict of interest. For this purpose, the term "conflict of interest" means any financial or other interest which conflicts with the service of the individual because it (1) could significantly impair the individual's objectivity or (2) could create an unfair competitive advantage for any person or organization. Except for those situations in which the institution determines that a conflict of interest is unavoidable and promptly and publicly discloses the conflict of interest, no individual can be appointed to serve (or continue to serve) on a committee of the institution used in the development of reports if the individual has a conflict of interest that is relevant to the functions to be performed.

I would not be surprised if FIFA has little awareness of issues of conflict of interest, as it has rarely if ever sought to formally solicit independent advice. However, since FIFA is being advised by Transparency International, there is a good chance that such issues will be brought to their attention. As well, the media who cover FIFA might also press the organization on how it plans to ensure the independence of its Good Governance Committee, including its management of issues of conflict of interest.

A committee that I served on of the Bipartisan Policy Center a few years ago wrote a report on expert advisory committees and emphasized the importance of transparency in disclosure of actual or potential financial conflicts of interest (here in PDF).

An early indication of the seriousness with which FIFA is taking its Good Governance Committee will be whether it clearly delineates and applies a conflict of interest policy, including full disclosure of potential conflicts. Such a move will enhance the credibility of FIFA's steps towards reform by providing a public assurance in the actual independence of the advisory body. Should FIFA not take such steps its efforts at reform will be rightly questioned from the outset.

Here are a few more details from the US NAS on conflicts of interest as related to advisory committees:

General Principles

The term "conflict of interest" means something more than individual bias. There must be an interest, ordinarily financial, that could be directly affected by the work of the committee. Conflict of interest requirements are objective and prophylactic. They are not an assessment of one's actual behavior or character, one's ability to act objectively despite the conflicting interest, or one's relative insensitivity to particular dollar amounts of specific assets because of one's personal wealth. Conflict of interest requirements are objective standards designed to eliminate certain specific, potentially compromising situations from arising, and thereby to protect the individual, the other members of the committee, the institution, and the public interest. The individual, the committee, and the institution should not be placed in a situation where others could reasonably question, and perhaps discount or dismiss, the work of the committee simply because of the existence of such conflicting interests.

The term "conflict of interest" applies only to current interests. It does not apply to past interests that have expired, no longer exist, and cannot reasonably affect current behavior. Nor does it apply to possible interests that may arise in the future but do not currently exist, because such future interests are inherently speculative and uncertain. For example, a pending formal or informal application for a particular job is a current interest, but the mere possibility that one might apply for such a job in the future is not a current interest.

The term "conflict of interest" applies not only to the personal financial interests of the individual but also to the interests of others with whom the individual has substantial common financial interests if these interests are relevant to the functions to be performed. Thus, in assessing an individual's potential conflicts of interest, consideration must be given not only to the interests of the individual but also to the interests of the individual's spouse and minor children, the individual's employer, the individual's business partners, and others with whom the individual has substantial common financial interests. Consideration must also be given to the interests of those for whom one is acting in a fiduciary or similar capacity (e.g., being an officer or director of a corporation, whether profit or nonprofit, or serving as a trustee).

Financial Interests

The term "conflict of interest" as used herein ordinarily refers to financial conflicts of interest. In assessing potential conflicts of interest in connection with an individual's service on a committee of the institution used in the development of reports for sponsors, particular attention will be given to the following kinds of financial interests if they are relevant to the functions to be performed: employment relationships (including private and public sector employment and self-employment); consulting relationships (including commercial and professional consulting and service arrangements, scientific and technical advisory board memberships, and serving as an expert witness in litigation); stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments and investments including partnerships; real estate investments; patents, copyrights, and other intellectual property interests; commercial business ownership and investment interests; services provided in exchange for honorariums and travel expense reimbursements; research funding and other forms of research support.

FIFA Reforms: Ask Us About Them in March 2012

UPDATE #3: Play the Game provides an overview of reactions here.

UPDATE #2: Transparency International says let's wait and see.

UPDATE: FIFA has made its press pack available as a PDF here.

The image above comes from the FIFA press conference today in which Sepp Blatter announced a reform agenda for FIFA. The "Road Map Good Governance" includes the establishment of 4 Task Forces and a "Committee Good Governance" to provide recommendations to the FIFA Executive Committee. No specific reforms have been adopted.  Blatter explained to the press that they should come back next March and ask him about them then, implying that changes would be in place by that time.

In the press conference Blatter was asked about the details "Committee Good Governance" and he replied that it would have the following characteristics:

• 15-18 members
• independent, transparent
• will take up the committee with Transparency International
• wants TI on committee
• empaneled by December 31
• first meeting in February
• first report in March
• someone in a parliament or a minister

Blatter apologized for earlier invoking Henry Kissinger and other big names (Placido Domingo and Johann Cryuff). Blatter did not seem to have given much thought to the committee or its role and De Gregorio appeared to hasten the end of Blatter's meandering reply to this question.

It will be interesting to see how TI responds to the FIFA proposals, because FIFA has rejected the top-line TI recommendation " to carry out comprehensive governance reforms overseen by a group composed of representatives from outside FIFA (elder statesmen, sponsors, media and civil society) and inside football (federations, clubs, professional leagues, players, women’s football, referees, supporters) in a way that ensures its independence." Will TI allow itself to be co-opted into a process that appears minimalist at best?

The FIFA proposals, while perhaps a small positive step, do not involve the establishment of an independent group.  Indeed the new Task Forces and Committee will be bodies that are created by and report to the FIFA Executive Committee.

In short, FIFA has not yet embarked on a reform agenda. It has set up a few advisory task forces and committees to propose reforms. While new FIFA spokesman Walter De Gregorio's plea to give FIFA time is noted, the bottom line is that today, nothing has changed. While some will point to the announced release of the ISL court documents as a positive step (and indeed it is) it hardly makes up for the fact that governance reform remains off in the future.

End Relegation? Don't Think So

The BBC reports that some Premier League owners are making noises about ending the practice of relegation and promotion:

Several foreign-owned Premier League clubs want to scrap relegation, according to League Managers Association (LMA) chief Richard Bevan.

Bevan fears that if more clubs are sold to foreign investors they may have enough votes to force changes.

But the Premier League said relegation and promotion were part of its rules and added to the league's strength.

Bevan hopes that a parliamentary inquiry into football governance would also help prevent the proposal.

"We're very keen that the report is successful in helping the Football Association introduce a licensing programme for clubs," he said.

"Because there are a number of overseas-owned clubs already talking about bringing about the avoidance of promotion and relegation in the Premier League.

"If we have four or five more new owners, that could happen."

I'm not sure what to make of this, and neither apaprently does Bevan or anyone else:

The Premier League clubs have not formally discussed any such move since Bolton chairman Phil Gartside proposed his two-tiered structure two years ago, an idea which was soon dismissed.

However, Bevan still believes it is a possibility, arguing any new owner of a Premier League club would not need to be foreign for them to see there would be money to be made from scrapping relegation.

"It doesn't really matter if you're from overseas or not, does it?" he said. "It doesn't matter whether you're from Birmingham or you're from Burma."

A Premier League spokesman said that they did not recognise LMA chief executive Bevan's claims, which come a week after the government demanded changes to the way that football is run.

Change appears to be coming to European football, and everyone is trying to position themselves for the unknown. But ending relegation and promotion seems far-fetched by any criteria.

What Will FIFA Do?

Tomorrow is the day that FIFA is expected to release its plan for reform.  The BBC explains what is at stake:

Having overseen the biggest crisis in Fifa's history, Sepp Blatter knows the next two days could well shape his legacy after 13 years at the top of world football.

If Fifa's president produces a series of serious measures which back up the zero-tolerance rhetoric we have been hearing for so long now, there might just be a chance he will be given the credit for cleaning up the discredited organisation.

Fail to deliver on his promises of reform and the damage to Blatter's already-tarnished reputation may be beyond repair.

This BBC interview with new FIFA VP Jim Boyce provides some optimism that fresh voices can indeed help to foster change.  That said, I'll believe it when I see it.

Jack Warner Responds: A Tsunami is Coming

Jack Warner, the former FIFA official now banned for corruption, has written a letter to the Trinidad and Tobego Guardian in which he claims that "a tsunami that would hit the FIFA, and indeed, it will come." Here is an excerpt:

What is now even more interesting is that in spite of being a senior FIFA official for 23 years and serving as the FIFA’s 8th president for a period of 13 years, Sepp Blatter now suddenly sees the need to reform the FIFA from within in his last term of office and in the sunset of his days. This is hypocritical to say the least for it is public knowledge that his four terms of office have been dogged with controversy and allegations of corruption to which he has never responded. Why now I ask? But of this I will have much more to say.

I wonder why Warner is holding out on releasing his information, does he think that the threats will deliver a reprieve?