Could FIFA suspend Argentina if justice intervenes in the AFA?

The fight between the national government and Chiqui Tapia is installed. The decision of the General Inspection of Justice to suspend the elections in AFA, which will at the same time appeal the measure and still carry out the assembly, is one more round of the fight. And now, Daniel Roque Vítolo, head of the IGJ, assured that “the Ministry of Justice can intervene.” That is why the question arises:FIFA can disaffiliate the Argentine Football Association if it considers that there is political interference in the internal affairs of the Association?

The sports leadership has always emphasized that if any government interferes in its decisions or even threatens to intervene in the entity, FIFA could suspend or expel the AFA from its ranks. Therefore, The National Team could not participate in official competitions such as the Copa América, the world qualifiers, except the World Cupand not in youth categories either.

Article 15 of the statute is clear on this matter. “Statutes of the member federations” is the heading and says: “The Statutes of the member federations must comply with the principles of governance and, in particular, must include at least certain provisions relating to the following matters: a) declaration of neutrality regarding politics and religion; b) prohibition of all forms of discrimination; c) independence and prevention of political interference; d) guarantee of the independence of judicial bodies (separation of powers).”

Then, in article 16, it explains the mechanism for suspension. “The Congress may suspend a member federation only at the request of the Council. However, without a vote of the Congress, the Council may temporarily suspend and with immediate effect those member federations that seriously violate their obligations. The suspension of the Council will remain in force until the next Congressunless the Council lifts the sanction before the Congress is held. 2. The suspension of a member federation by Congress will require a three-quarters (3/4) majority of the members present and entitled to vote. The suspension of a member federation by the Congress or the Council must be confirmed at the following Congress by a three-quarter majority of the member federations present and entitled to vote. If not confirmed, said suspension will be automatically lifted. 3. Suspended member federations will not be able to exercise their membership rights. The rest of the member federations will not maintain contact, on a sporting level, with those suspended. The Disciplinary Commission may impose other sanctions.”

Expulsion is more complex but is provided for in article 17: “1. Only at the request of the Council, the Congress may expel a member association if: a) it fails to fulfill its financial obligations to FIFA; b) seriously violates the Statutes, regulations or decisions of FIFA; c) loses the category of representative federation of association football in its country. 2. For the exclusion of a member federation to be valid, the presence in Congress of the absolute majority (more than 50%) of the member federations with the right to vote will be required; In addition, the proposal must be approved by a majority of three-quarters (3/4) of the valid votes cast.”

The Government describes as an “urban myth” promoted since the time of Julio Humberto Grondona the possibility of the AFA being disaffiliated by FIFA due to state interference instead of resorting to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (TAS), based in Lausanne. . However, the record says otherwise.

One of the last federations to be suspended by FIFA was Kenyabetween February and November 2022. The FIFA Council Bureau adopted the decision because The Kenyan government had dismissed the entire Executive Committee of the Kenya Federation. When it received the letter from the general secretary, Barry Otieno, assuring that the government had reinstated all charges, FIFA lifted the sanction.

The case of the All India Football Federation (AIFF) is also fresh, which was suspended in 2022 after losing control of its activities. “due to serious interference by third parties”which FIFA considered “a serious breach of its statute.” At that time, the mother entity of soccer did not care that the country involved was about to host the U-17 Women’s Soccer World Cup and one of its businesses was directly affected.

With the arrival of Joao Havelange to the presidency in 1974, the world body began to be much more rigorous with political interference in the federations. It must be remembered that between 1966, after the coup d’état by Juan Carlos Onganía against the radical Arturo Illia, The AFA was intervened from 1966 to 1973, when democracy returned after the triumph of Héctor Cámpora.

Argentina had been chosen to organize the World Cup in Tokyo 64 and the venue was ratified in England 66 and Mexico 68. At that time, the FIFA congresses were held every two years, at the venues of the Olympic Games and the World Cup. World. But everything accelerated after 1974. The coup of March 24, 1976 put the tournament at riskmuch more because The military forced the resignation of President David Bracuttofinancially harassed (the AFA accounts were emptied).

Another intervention was coming, but Havelange, who had new friends with the military and especially with Rear Admiral Carlos Lacoste, warned about the situation. Bracutto resigned, as did all the members of the Executive Committee, and manager Ernesto Wiedrich took over on an interim basis.

The assembly to elect a new president and a new Executive Committee was called for April 22. One of the candidates was Rafael Aragón Cabrera, president of River. The other, Gregorio Trimarco, man from Vélez and brother of Domingo Trimarco, governor of Neuquén between 1978 and 1983. The numbers favored Trimarco. But as soon as the Assembly began, José Colón Fernández, president of Temperley, moved to move to an intermission, arguing that he intended to “avoid divisionism and seek unanimity of criteria.”

The vote showed division. There were 36 assembly members, 19 voted in favor of the postponement and 17 against. “This intermission room can be very useful for everyone. Maybe there are coincidences that favor all the clubs,” said Rafael Aragón Cabrera, one of the presidential candidates who was in favor of postponing the election. Lieutenant Colonel (RE) Fernando Baldrich, first vice president of San Lorenzo, was one of the election prosecutors and commented: “The division between the two parties is too pronounced.”

The new assembly was called for May 3. What happened in the middle. The Navy had won the fight against the Army for the management of the AFA. The presence of Admiral Emilio Massera, one of the members of the first Military Junta of the bloody dictatorship commanded by Jorge Rafael Videla, and that of Vice Admiral Carlos Alberto Lacoste, began to become strong in the AFA. In the first assembly, they stopped Trimarco’s candidacy. And in fifteen days, he managed to impose the candidacy of Alfredo Cantilo, a lawyer who had been president of the College of Referees between 1969 and 1970 and of the International Affairs commission between 1971 and 1983. Cantilo was a partner of Vélez, of CUBA, of Jockey Club and the Ocean Club of Mar del Plata. The third man was the solution at that time and although it was more of an imposition, a sanction from FIFA and the possibility of losing the organization of the World Cup were avoided.