Shrugging at the Evidence

Mr. Perumal remained in South Africa until June 30, 2010, deep into the World Cup, according to the FIFA report. Mr. Perumal wrote that he offered a referee $400,000 to manipulate a World Cup match, but that the referee declined because he thought Mr. Perumal had a “loose tongue.”

After the World Cup, a freelance journalist, Mark Gleason, reported suspicions among some African soccer officials that exhibition matches had been rigged. FIFA did nothing at the time.

In fact, FIFA did not investigate the suspicious games for nearly two years, until March 2012. By then, Mr. Chaibou had reached FIFA’s mandatory retirement age, 45. FIFA has said it investigates only active referees, so its investigation of Mr. Chaibou stopped. “It took a while to get around to it, longer than we would have liked,” Mr. Steans, the author of the report, said in an interview.

At the time, FIFA’s investigative staff amounted to five people responsible for examining dozens of international match-fixing cases, he said. The group has no subpoena power or law enforcement authority.

Investigators spent only three days in South Africa and never interviewed the referees or the teams involved, the report said. An unsuccessful attempt was made to interview Mr. Chaibou at the time, according to Mr. Steans.

FIFA officials in Zurich received the report in October 2012 and passed it to the soccer officials in South Africa; it had little meaningful effect there. A few South African officials were suspended but later reinstated. And no one was charged with a crime even though FIFA had found “compelling evidence” of fixed exhibitions and apparent collusion by some South African soccer officials.

“We never got to speak to the referees, which was sad,” said Mr. Steans, who operates his own sports security firm. “It would have tied up a lot of loose ends. I’m sure they would have given us some relevant information.”