2010 FIFA World Cup: Is Nigeria's Decision a Smart or Fatal Move?

When is it acceptable to throw away the baby with the bath water?

Or is it never?

What if the baby is a time bomb?

Defuse it?

What if there is no time to do so except fling it away and run? Or what if the bomb cannot be disarmed? Should all be lost just to keep the baby?

Difficult questions, a thing to ponder upon by situational ethicists.

The case of the decision of Nigeria's president, Goodluck Jonathan, to withdraw the country's national team from international football competition for two years seems analogous to throwing away the baby with the bath water.

The news has been greeted with incredulity by many. Nigeria's international star, Dickson Etuhu, one of the Super Eagles players at the World Cup, told CNN in an interview that he was "shocked" by the news and wondered whether banning the team was the right way of addressing the problems of Nigerian football.

A Time of Nigeria columnist, Michael Effiong, calls the president's action a "fire-brigade move that will bring more harm, than any good for our football."

Some have called the action idiotic; while some , basing their analysis on the assumption that the suspension results solely from the poor performance of the Super Eagles at the World Cup, have been quick to point out the ramification of the ban.

Knee-jerked as president Jonathan's action may seem, a little background to the situation would show that it is far from idiotic or thoughtless.

As Colin Udoh has pointed out in Kickoff magazine on-line, "this [decision is] less about Nigeria's poor performance at the World Cup, and more about the elections into the executive committee of the NFF."

He further explains that "led by the new Sports Minister Isa Bio, members of the PTF appealed to FIFA, accusing the NFF leadership of corruption and asking for the elections [due in August] to be suspended."

PTF is a Presidential Task Force which had been set up months earlier to ensure Nigeria's qualification to the World Cup when Nigeria was on the brink of not qualifying.

"They met a brick wall in President Sepp Blatter," the report continues, "who informed the delegation that corruption issues should be tackled by the national agencies involved, and the elections could not be stopped as long as the Statutes were followed."

As an aside, how can an indicted person investigate him/herself?

Those consonant with Nigerian football would be aware that one major outcry of Nigerians is against the NFF, a body they consider highly corrupt, and not without reason. Consider these recent examples.

During the qualification campaign for South Africa 2010, not less than $200,000 (some say $400,000) went missing from the coffers of the NFF without any break-in into their secretariat.

It was money meant for the Super Eagle’s Africa qualifier match against Mozambique. As yet, the NFF has failed to explain how such an amount could go missing without any break-in into their secretariat.

Some readers would recall the news of the booking of a substandard hotel for the Super Eagles by the NFF, a ploy, no doubt, to save money on accommodation to be siphoned later into their own pockets.

The rejection of the substandard hotel by the newly appointed Swede coach, Lars Lagerback for a better accommodation, led to a fine of $125,000 by FIFA.

Then there was the plane incident which caused the Super Eagles to be stranded for 24 hours in London.

Kickoff magazine on-line (posted on 01-06-2010) had reported that the NFF, in booking the particular airline, had acted against the directive of the country's sport minister.

The incident smacked of venality.

For the World Cup, the NFF constituted a bloated committee, consisting of 14 subcommittees as though they were the host of the tournament.

They would later request 200 visas for their "officers" to attend the tournament, most of which the South African government rejected. Nigerians saw this as yet another ploy to appropriate federal funds in the guise of service.

There was, of course, the questionable sack of their erstwhile coach, Shuaibu Amodu, at the eve of the World Cup and the employment of Lars Lagerback amidst allegations of corruption, notably by Glenn Hoddle.

He claimed that he did not get the Super Eagles' coaching job because NFF officials wanted to inflate his requested fee to deceive the Nigerian government.

This case of corruption, though, goes beyond the foregoing examples and has been a longstanding problem in Nigeria, enabled by FIFA's no-governmental-intervention policy, the ramification of which prompted the above-mentioned visit of Nigeria's PTF to FIFA.

In short, PTF wanted to circumvent the gridlock of the NFF corrupt system, which has inured itself over the years through cycles of reelection via the immunity FIFA's blanket law affords. The law ensures that the government has no chance to clean up the corrupt NFF.

It is no wonder therefore, that those who understand this problem have hailed as appropriate the action of Nigeria's president. (See here .) A Nigerian on a BBC web page writes (link given in the previous parenthesis):

"The country's football need to start on a clean slate, with people who will put the growth of football ahead of their personal gains, to manage football in Nigeria.
The action of the President is a welcome development."

Another respondent on the same page opines:

To be honest in no country is sport a seperate (sic) and independent entity. Fifa may ban the nation but that would be more counter productive than progressive. Why should a country, which struggles to allocate the funds it has to the right areas for national development, have to pour money into what is essentially an openbottom pocket. If one put alot (sic) of money into a school but all the students continuously (sic) failed exams it would be argued that the money should be redirected.

Fifa is not a transnational organisation equal to the UN, IMF or WB that it can now decide how a country deals with citizens of that country who become ambassadors of that country every 2/4 years.

A Ghanaian remarks specifically on FIFA's non-intervention policy:

As a Ghanaian I agree 100% with the action taken by the Nigerian government. This FIFA policy of non- interference by governments into the affairs of football associations have only made associations more corrupt.

FIFA should rethink this policy out. The FAs are part of a national setup and represent citizens. How do you expect government to allocate resources to the FA and then you tell them you can't tell the people how to run the FA.

Well, the government has now said Nigeria won't participate in any more tournaments. By the ban it renders the FA useless since there can be no principal and teachers in a school which has no students, FIFA can take its FA members and do whatever they want with them.

When the current FA goes, Nigeria will be back and a new FA team will be setup. I hope the French are observing the move. Blatter might be unhappy because some of his votes have been taken away. Well done, President Goodluck J.

Yet another respondent, Ivan Radhakrishnan, sees a hidden motive in FIFA's stance.

FIFA 'rules' cannot supersede any Country's Constitution or a presidential directive. It is only through the benevolence of Africa's Taxpayers (who have no choice!) - and not the money of Advertisers and Sponsors - that Football is played and FIFA 'competitions are contested.

2011 is a FIFA election year; Joseph Sepp Blatter, desperate to win a 4th term will never kick Nigeria out of FIFA even if it means begging their president to change his mind.

There is a Nigerian, Amos Adamu, in the FIFA Executive Committee and FIFA are 'monitoring news coming out of Nigeria'!

If it was a small African country without 'connections' in high places Blatter would have already thrown them out (Remember Ethiopia kicked out of the 2010 World Cup and it took 6 years for FIFA to place a subservient 'committee' that will do as FIFA says.

Obviously the 'officials' in the Nigerian Football Federation (NFF) are compromised - legally and otherwise - and therefore Blatter will back them to continue in office which ensures he gets Nigeria's vote in 2011.

Opinions are not different on Kickoff magazine site. Although, of course, some still see president Jonathan's decision as ultimately counterproductive.

If this is an example of the scenario set up at the beginning of this article, the question is, is this too much a price to pay to clean up a corrupt system?

For the skeptics who doubt that president Jonathan's action are for the right reasons, consider these recent developments.

Only on Wednesday, before the controversial news of the suspension came, it was reported by Vanguard Newspaper Nigeria that police had raided the Secretariat of the NFF and had taken with them NFF files.

The reporter thought this indicated that business as usual for the Nigerian FA would no longer be the case.

The same paper reports that EFCC, an organization that investigates grafts and corruption, is poised to investigate the circumstance under which Lars Lagerback was employed.

Already, the Nigerian government has set up a caretaker committee , which includes former Nigeria internationals Jay-Jay Okocha and Samson Siasia, to restructure the nation's football administration.

Nigeria's sport minister has since said that the government is willing to work with FIFA to negotiate the situation to ensure that Nigeria is not banned by FIFA for additional years beside the two-year voluntary withdrawal.

There is no doubt that if this decision stands, it will have a drastic effect on Nigerian football.

It might result in a lost decade for Nigeria. An additional ban from FIFA beside their voluntary two-year withdrawal means Nigeria will miss the 2014 World Cup in Brazil as well as two Africa Cups of Nations.

The ban, of course, will not only affect the senior side, it will affect age-grade sides, their female football teams, as well as hinder their club sides from competing in the continent.

Players will suffer as well, as the opportunity to play at the highest level will no longer be available; while those that require national action in order to qualify for playing in European clubs will have no way of doing so. This will affect Nigeria's ability to produce world-class players.

And if part of this decision is so that a new team can be built, how will they test the team without the opportunity to compete at the highest level, that is against other national teams?

As to the issue of cleaning up the corruption that has gridlocked the NFF, even if the current officers are swept away, how can the government be sure that the new board will act any differently from the current one?

These are few of the ramifications of this voluntary withdrawal from international competition by Nigeria. There may be more.

Though the reason for this decision has been highlighted in the foregoing. The question remains: are the ramifications too high a price to pay to clean up a corrupt system?

Is this an ill-advised case of throwing  away the baby with the bath water, or is the keeping of the baby too dangerous for life (the rest of everything) so that it is best to throw the ill-fated baby away?