The Oceania Football Confederation (OFC) is the single biggest handbrake to the progress of football in this country. So, it's really disappointing to learn NZ Football is doing nothing about it ...
Permalink
Permalink
Interesting article, but I did have to query whether there is any tangible evidence of the assertion that FIFA "may disband Oceania of its own accord". Can you cite any reputable sources to back up that statement?
FIFA do not in themselves have the right to change the confederations. The members themselves form and control the confederations, within the rights allowed by the FIFA statutes. FIFA only have the right of approval over new members applying to join FIFA or member countries joining a different confederation to which they would be geographically assigned. In that last instance the confederation concerned has a say.
FIFA is made up of three bodies:
1. The Congress is the supreme and legislative body.
2. The Executive Committee is the executive body.
3. The general secretariat is the administrative body.
2. The Executive Committee is the executive body.
3. The general secretariat is the administrative body.
The Congress is responsible for amending the Statutes, the Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes and the Standing Orders of the Congress. Each Member has one vote in the Congress. A proposal for an amendment to the Statutes shall be adopted only if three quarters of the Members present and eligible to vote agree to it*. Would three quarters of the member countries vote in favour of Oceania being disbanded? It depends on where the members would go - presumably Asia or a split of Asia, as the two most popular theories. Would 53 of FIFA's 209 members vote against such a move and therefore kill it?
*However, while the confederations are identified in the Statutes their actual existence per se is not clearly a matter of the statutes. Therefore it may not be a matter of Congress amending teh Statutes and therefore perhaps it is easier than finding 75% support for it?
If it is not Congress, then it is up to the Executive Committee. The Statutes say:
The Executive Committee shall pass decisions on all cases that do not come within the sphere of responsibility of the Congress or are not reserved for other bodies by law or under these Statutes.
The Executive Committee consists of 24 members:
1 President, elected by the Congress
8 vice-presidents, and
15 members, appointed by the Confederations and Associations.
1 President, elected by the Congress
8 vice-presidents, and
15 members, appointed by the Confederations and Associations.
This is made up as follows:
(a) CONMEBOL vice-president (1) members (2)
(b) AFC vice-president (1) members (3)
(c) UEFA vice-presidents (2) members (5)
(d) CAF vice-president (1) members (3)
(e) CONCACAF vice-president (1) members (2)
(f) OFC vice-president (1) member (�)
(g) the four UK Associations vice-president (1) member (�)
(a) CONMEBOL vice-president (1) members (2)
(b) AFC vice-president (1) members (3)
(c) UEFA vice-presidents (2) members (5)
(d) CAF vice-president (1) members (3)
(e) CONCACAF vice-president (1) members (2)
(f) OFC vice-president (1) member (�)
(g) the four UK Associations vice-president (1) member (�)
The Statutes don't seem to say what majority is required for the Executive Committee to pass a change. They do say:
Unless otherwise stipulated in the Statutes, a simple majority is sufficient for a vote to be valid. Abstentions are not counted when calculating the majority.
By the way, you often see people implying Sepp Blatter has the authority to implement such a change. This is not so. He is responsible for:
(a) implementing the decisions passed by the Congress and the Executive Committee through the general secretariat;
(b) supervising the work of the general secretariat;
(c) relations between FIFA and the Confederations, Members, political bodies and international organisations.
(b) supervising the work of the general secretariat;
(c) relations between FIFA and the Confederations, Members, political bodies and international organisations.
He can propose changes, just as any member can, but he has no authority to implement a change unless it is passed by Congress and the Executive Committee above.
Overall, I am pessimistic that NZ can look to FIFA reorganising the Federations to remove the problems implicit in being part of Oceania. It could happen in the long term, but there will have to be so much political jockeying to get the requisite support up to the appropriate majority level. Bundling a proposed change with voting incentives to the Asian members around things like World Cup Finals spots is double-edged as members in the zone that would be having their spots allocation reduced will be likely to then oppose it.
Permalink
Permalink
thanks SINZ. I think I am guilty of applying the term FIFA in rather loose terms
Permalink
Permalink
I'd love to be able to get definitive word on whether the re-drawing of the confederations is considered a matter of changing the Statutes or whether it would be an item for the Executive Committee. This is important as it makes a significant difference to what percentage is required to get such a change applied.
Looking at the history books for when the OFC was first granted formal recognition, this was approved by the Congress. Looking at that, the vote went to the entire membership. Only one country voted against (don't know who) and 170 voted for - I don't know what the approval threshold was i.e. whether it constituted an amendment to the Statutes and required 75% .
Permalink
Permalink
I hereby wish to nominate "Brother SiNZ" for the YF honours list under the category of "Golden Anorak of the Decade"
that's some classic posting Mike 
edit - 
tigers2009-09-29 22:04:34
Permalink
Permalink
SiNZ - appreciate that there are a lot of hoops to jump through but Sepp Blatter does wield a lot of personal power simply because of the fact that he has huge and consistent support from almost every confederation aside from Europe. The man - rightly or worngly - gets things through generally when he suggests them. There are an awful lot of blazers on FIFA that really don't know a lot about football and are pretty appreciative for being there, and generally don't rock the blatter boat I think if Blatter decided that he wanted to change things up then ultimately it would happen. Can you really see Blatter listening to the Solomon's, Fiji and Vanuatu if he wants something to happen?
If NZF is happy with the status quo I'd really like a stout defence of the current situation - or some kind of cost benefit analysis v something new. The problem is that the better we get (and the more players that we have playing at big clubs in Europe) the less palatable fixtures against Island nations will become for our international players and the less likely they are to turn up for them. |I personally think that Oceania is a problem that FIFA just doesn't want to touch at the moment - and that's fine bacause we make so little noise.
BTW - Tahiti have lost both goals in the U20 WC 8-0, and most teams are far from full strength. More evidence that Oceania is a complete joke.
Normo's coming home
Permalink
Permalink
SiNZ - appreciate that there are a lot of hoops to jump through but Sepp Blatter does wield a lot of personal power simply because of the fact that he has huge and consistent support from almost every confederation aside from Europe. The man - rightly or worngly - gets things through generally when he suggests them. There are an awful lot of blazers on FIFA that really don't know a lot about football and are pretty appreciative for being there, and generally don't rock the blatter boat I think if Blatter decided that he wanted to change things up then ultimately it would happen. Can you really see Blatter listening to the Solomon's, Fiji and Vanuatu if he wants something to happen?
If NZF is happy with the status quo I'd really like a stout defence of the current situation - or some kind of cost benefit analysis v something new. The problem is that the better we get (and the more players that we have playing at big clubs in Europe) the less palatable fixtures against Island nations will become for our international players and the less likely they are to turn up for them. |I personally think that Oceania is a problem that FIFA just doesn't want to touch at the moment - and that's fine bacause we make so little noise.
BTW - Tahiti have lost both goals in the U20 WC 8-0, and most teams are far from full strength. More evidence that Oceania is a complete joke.
I dunno about not having the support of Europe, maybe when Johansson was UEFA president, but now Platini is in, him and Blatter are often saying the same thing.
The only thing that will change the status quo is if FIFA can see a way of making more money out of merging oceania with asia, otherwise I can't see them being bothered.
Permalink
Permalink
You're right 14, generally the two are on the same page. Just meant that he doesn't command automatic support from Europe like he tends to do from some of the other confederations
Normo's coming home
Permalink
Permalink
But it's the members that have to vote on Congress matters and they are the representatives of the national FAs. We're not talking about the sub-committees that look after things like the World Cup hosting, we're talking about the Congress where every nation has a delegate. Delegates must belong to the Member Association that they represent and be appointed by the appropriate body of that Association. Not FIFA or the FIFA President.
However, as you say Blatter does command support from some FAs so if he backs or puts the proposal up, there would be votes he can count on. But, and I keep saying this and it keeps getting ignored, changing the Statutes requires a yes vote from 156 delegates.In addition, forcing Oceania into Asia, which may or may not get split into East/West, is going to be a big proposal. Unlike most of the proposals that get processed, this one is going to polarise delegate voting. Asia are likely to resist and campaign for support amongst nations in other confederations. Even for someone who has a list of nations on whose support he can usually rely, preventing 53 nations* from saying no is a big task.
*Note, if it is a simply majority vote (i.e. not considered a Statute change) then the burden of approval is much lighter.
Permalink
Permalink
By the way, I support your call for NZF to provide a stout defence of the status quo if they are happy staying in Oceania. I personally believe that NZ needs to join Asia and that Oceania *should* therefore be merged with Asia (split into East/West or not) - even though getting that done is big problem.
My posting was started because Sam had said FIFA were apparently looking at disbanding Oceania. As it's something I'm very interested in, I was hoping he could cite a source for that statement. Sadly, it appears to have been speculation.
Permalink
Permalink
I was really just saying FIFA "could" disband Oceania (ie its possible the decision could be made for us), rather than trying to suggest its on the cards (although you do hear various rumours about he futur of OFC/AFC).
Probably wast put that clearly though, granted
Marius Lacatus2009-09-30 10:38:16
Permalink
Permalink
SiNZ - great comments - go and post them on the blog!!
Permalink
Permalink