Skip to footer

Why did the arbitration court reject transparent booths in FIFA election?

Prince Ali of Jordan had asked for transparent booths to be used in the Friday election, in a bid to ensure that the elections were free and fair.

|
Arnd Wiegmann/Reuters
A soccer jersey of the national team of Qatar is placed beside that of Georgia and Russia in a glass cabinet at the new FIFA World Football Museum in Zurich, Switzerland.

The International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) presidential election is expected to proceed as scheduled on Friday – and without transparent voting booths.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) rejected the request of Prince Ali of Jordan asking the court to ensure that FIFA used transparent voting booths, his campaign team says.

Prince Ali, one of five candidates bidding to succeed outgoing FIFA President Sepp Blatter, is seeking reassurances over the voting procedure for the election and had called for a postponement if his concerns were not answered. He had asked for the use of transparent booths to ensure delegates don’t photograph their ballot papers when they choose the next president, claiming that the delegates could be put under pressure to produce evidence of their vote to interested parties.

The court rejected the request in a statement saying that the "the full order with grounds will be communicated in a few days."

Responding to the court’s decision, Prince Ali expressed his regret, urging representatives from member associations to adhere to the ban on recording devices while casting their vote.

"I advocated for transparent voting booths on behalf of FA presidents who want to vote their conscience, without worrying that someone with a different agenda is looking over their shoulder. The Prince said, according to International Business Times, “I fought for them at Fifa and at CAS, and brought transparent booths to Zurich to eliminate any excuse for not using them.”

"I have done all I can. I regret that the system let us down," the Prince said. "The only positive aspect of today’s ruling is it that the election will now go forward as planned, and the media will be closely watching for any evidence that anyone is photographing their ballot.”

FIFA had earlier rejected Prince Ali’s proposal saying that it will instead ask voters to leave their mobile phones outside while choosing between the five candidates. The federation, which this week is expected to approve wide-scale reforms to ensure openness and guard against the corruption which has engulfed it in recent times, insisted that it is sufficient for delegates from the 209 voting nations to hand over cameras and phones before entering the booths, according to the BBC.

But Prince Ali's legal representatives are seeking clarification on the enforcement of those measures and the sanctions available for any violation of the ban, according to the Independent.

The Prince’s legal team isn’t satisfied with FIFA’s response partly because “voters had reportedly documented how they had voted in last May's presidential election," the Independent reported. Blatter prevailed over Prince Ali in that election, only to resign days later as he became embroiled in the football corruption scandal.

In the past year, 41 FIFA officials have been arrested as a result of the US Department of Justice investigation into massive corruption among several global soccer officials.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to Why did the arbitration court reject transparent booths in FIFA election?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2016/0224/Why-did-the-arbitration-court-reject-transparent-booths-in-FIFA-election
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe