With regard to the release by FIFA’s ethics judge of the findings by his committee on the World Cup host-bidding process, one of three things is possible:

The investigation by prosecutor Michael Garcia was woefully inept and blind.

Or, key suspects and witnesses failed to co-operate with the investigation.

Or, low and behold, both Russia and Qatar were squeaky clean in the way they conducted their bids.

So which is it?

The third of those possibilities, it appears, is a case of 'fat chance' if the broad global reaction to the report by public and media alike is to be taken as a guide. You can count me in, for I don't believe it either.

But let's deal first with some of the hogwash that has been peddled by some media organisations since the report's release:

The ethics committee is not an instrument of the FIFA top brass. It is totally independent and I can vouch for this, having served on the committee for six years during which two of FIFA's most powerful men, Mohamed Bin Hammam and Jack Warner, among others, were brought down for corruption. Both are out of football for life.

The respective chairmen of the committee's two chambers, Michael Garcia and Judge Hans-Joachim Eckert, are decent, honourable men. I know them both. Neither would take any attempt at interference from FIFA, even if it was offered. The committee, furthermore, believes in due process, the need for proof of guilt and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, as it should.

Yet something is wrong here. There are a number of holes in Judge Eckert's report and questions that remain mysteriously unanswered.

1. In March this year a number of FIFA executive committee members, who voted when Qatar was awarded the World Cup in 2010, tried to instigate a coup against Garcia and shut down his investigation. One has to ask why they would do that if they had nothing to hide. Judge Eckert flies over this episode in his report but fails to recommend that these men are further investigated and are brought to heel.

2. In his report, Eckert heavily focuses on reporting on the behavior of the bidding countries but is soft on the FIFA committee members who did the voting. He says, for example, that of the 11 Exco members who voted but are no longer on the committee, only five agreed to be interviewed. But Qatar got 14 votes and, given the global stench over that outcome, all 14 of those people need to identified and grilled as to why they voted that way.

3. While fingering Australia and England for acting inappropriately in the process, the report exonerates two bidders, Russia and Spain/Portugal despite their lack of co-operation with the investigation. It accepts without question Russia's excuse that its computers and email files had been destroyed and fails to even mention Spain/Portugal. This despite the widely held allegations that Spain and its Exco member, Angel Maria Villar, was engaged in vote trading with the Qataris. Our information is that Villar was among those who plotted to shut down the Garcia investigation.

4. Well before the investigation began it was demonstrable that FIFA had crooks in high places. Joao Havelange, FIFA's long time president, Ricardo Teixeira, Nicolas Leoz, Mohamed Bin Hammam, Amos Adamou, Reynald Temarii and Jack Warner, all took a fall for corruption. Four of these people voted at the ballot, which gave Qatar the hosting rights. Yet Eckert's report skirts over this issue and resiles from the supposition that FIFA's Exco members should all be held under suspicion.

5. Mohammed bin Hammam, a Qatari, was surely one of the 14 who voted for Qatar but he did a lot more than that and it is not an acceptable claim by the Qatari bid committee that he was not an official part of their team. Bin Hammam, however informally, was Qatar's chief and most aggressive strategist, lobbyist and numbers man. He never denied this and was even on the podium in Zurich when the Qataris made their presentation to the executive committee. So then, given what happened later when Bin Hammam was banned for life, not once but twice, for corruption, Qatar's most powerful supporter and most influential strategist was a crook. Yet Judge Eckert concludes that Qatar's bid was clean.

6. Further on Bin Hammam, The Sunday Times on November 16 published the following:

The [Sunday Times] Fifa Files show: Bin Hammam was in close contact with the bid team from its inception in September 2009, arranging for them to meet multiple key Fifa executive committee (Exco) voters. He used the Emir’s private jet to fly a string of voters to Doha where they were introduced to royals and bid officials. A month before the vote Sheikh Mohammed bin Khalifa Al Thani, the Qatar 2022 chairman, described Bin Hammam as “definitely our biggest asset in the bid”, adding that he had always been “by our side”.

Leaked emails show that after the vote, Bin Hammam’s son, two of his closest aides and dozens of football officials from around the world congratulated him on his great achievement in securing the World Cup for Qatar. This was hardly a “distant” relationship.

7. Judge Eckert claims that bribe moneys Bin Hammam paid to African officials, according to Garcia, were to help him get elected to the presidency of FIFA rather than to help Qatar win the World Cup bid. The Sunday Times, which uncovered the payments, disputes this also:

Bin Hammam used 10 slush funds controlled by his private company and cash hand-outs to make dozens of payments of up to $200,000 into accounts controlled by the presidents of 30 African football associations as well as handing over cash. His strategy was to target the African officials who held sway over the continent’s four Exco members.

The payments were made during or after three junkets where he lobbied officials. The documents show that the bills for at least one of the junkets were paid by Ali al-Thawadi, the Qatar 2022 bid’s deputy chief executive. Several emails thanking Bin Hammam for the junkets included pledges of support for the Qatar bid. Jacques Anouma, the Ivory Coast Exco voter, was flown into Qatar 11 months ahead of the vote and later emailed Bin Hammam to say he would “push very hard the bid of Qatar (sic)” and conveyed his “sincere thanks” to the Emir. On the day when Qatar’s bid was announced, Fadoul Houssein, president of the Djibouti football association, who had requested $30,000 from Bin Hammam for a colleague’s medical treatment, emailed the Qatari to say: “I was very pleased when I heard this news . . . count on me. I am already starting the war and I am sure you will win.” After Qatar won the right to host the World Cup, Bin Hammam wrote to Izetta Wesley, head of the Liberian federation to whom he had given $10,000, saying: “I would not have succeeded if not for friends and believers like you.” In none of the millions of emails searched by The Sunday Times do any of the African officials mention supporting Bin Hammam’s presidential bid until he declared his candidacy after the 2022 vote was won.

8. Despite the myriad of claims of bribery and corruption made by the Sunday Times, Michael Garcia took none of it as evidence for his investigation. Says the newspaper:

When The Sunday Times first published evidence in the Fifa Files detailing the bribes paid by Bin Hammam, Garcia shut the door by abruptly ending his investigation the following day. He has not to this day seen the millions of documents from our Fifa Files and as a result his report, as summarised by Eckert, is poorly informed and seriously wanting in key areas.

Now Michael Garcia, claiming erroneous or incomplete conclusions drawn by Judge Eckert, the chairman of the ethics committee's adjucatory chamber, is appealing to the FIFA appeals committee. Additionally he urges Eckert to publish the more than 400 pages of his investigation report. We have no idea what Garcia means to divulge, should he win the appeal, but judging by the above I wouldn't count my chickens.

I believe Garcia should publish but he should do more and, in the light of the un-probed Sunday Times allegations, and all of the above, should re-open the investigation. Even this week the newspaper revealed brand new allegations against Qatar, with a witness claiming Bin Hammam made an attempt at trading votes with England.

It is clear that while FIFA is happy to close the book on this case, and pat itself on the back for being party to an investigation at all, the rest of the global football family doesn't believe the findings. It's time FIFA listened to the people and exhibited some gusto in getting to the bottom of this affair.

Finally I close with a revelation that I could not make public while Garcia's investigation was still in progress.

Three years ago, when I was still on the FIFA Ethics Committee, I was informed by sources inside the Australian bid team that a member of the FIFA executive committee was asking the Australians for hard cash in return for votes. I reported this information up the chain of the Ethics Committee at the time, as was my duty, but I see no mention of it in Eckert's report.

This story, surely, still has some ways to run.

Follow @lesmurraySBS