Photo: Cape Town, December 2009. Spot the whistleblower

Another truly shambolic day in the history of FIFA.

We should be used to it by now, because it keeps on happening. But today’s events were particularly unsettling.

To recap, at 10am CET FIFA published a 42-page summary of Michael Garcia’s 430-page report into the 2018/22 World Cup bid process by Hans-Joachim Eckert, the head of the adjudicatory arm of FIFA’s ethics committee. Three hours later Garcia, who was allegedly paid $6million to write it, denounced the summary alleging ‘numerous materially incomplete and erroneous representations of the facts and conclusions’ detailed in the full report.

I’ve summarised the main findings via my twitter feed, but what inspires my anger is not so much the inevitable whitewash or that football has again been failed by its governing body, but that this sloppy excuse of a summary report betrays the very people it should protect.

Remember last month when FIFA desperately span the line that it couldn’t possibly publish the full version of the report because it would betray the confidentiality of its witnesses? Back then Marco Villiger claimed that if the principle didn’t exist ‘perhaps whistleblowers might not cooperate if such confidentiality did not exist.’

Step forward six weeks and those are the very people Eckert and Garcia have betrayed in their execrable excuse for a publication. Indeed, one would wonder why whistleblowers would ever cooperate given the cruel way that they have been betrayed by the pair.

Standing up for the truth in such a politicised atmosphere, when you’ve been exorcized by the bodies you are speaking out against, and when the stakes are so high is a tricky, very lonely and possibly risky business. It requires bravery, fortitude and defiance in the teeth of intimidation and ostracisation.

Eckert and Garcia surely knew this, having engaged in voluminous correspondence and interviews with two of those whistleblowers, who previously worked for the Australian and Qatar World Cup bids. Neither were under any obligation to speak, but did so through a sense of natural justice and belief in doing the right thing. Equally, Eckert and Garcia were under no obligation to accept their evidence.

What transpires in this summary report is the worst of both worlds. It trashes the credibility of both witnesses, while also using their evidence to form the spine of their investigation into each bid. It is not only mind-boggling hypocrisy, but entirely unethical. If they discount the evidence, then discount it. But to publicly question the integrity and credibility of people who have braved so much to speak out for the good of the game is beneath contempt.

I have known both the Qatari and Australian whistleblowers for five years, both in their former roles and in their current lives.

The Australian whistleblower is among the outstanding people that I’ve encountered in football, a person of integrity, intelligence, wit and passion for the game; a view that I know holds currency in both Australia and the wider football community. To read Eckert’s summation of that person’s assistance to the enquiry is to reveal a stranger. His account is replete with inaccuracies.

Let’s deal with his garbage, point by point:

‘While the relevant individual provided some useful information regarding possible issues for the Investigatory Chamber to examine, the evidence often did not support its specific recollections and allegations.’

This is a meticulous note-taker, someone who is noted for their preciseness. The account of Australia’s doomed bid that follows tallies with that of the whistleblower. So if the evidence is so unreliable, why base your investigation on it?

‘The relevant individual further undermined its own reliability by speaking with the press about its communications with the Investigatory Chamber.’

This is simply not true, despite many many media requests to this person. I strongly suggest Eckert/ Garcia provide evidence to support their allegation. In any case, who are they to decide who a private individual can and can’t talk to? And why should it matter?

‘Given these circumstances, the Investigatory Chamber of the FIFA Ethics Committee has not relied on any statement, document, or other information provided by the relevant individual in reaching any conclusions or findings in the Report.’

Why not? This is just a plain bizarre case of cutting your nose off to spite your face. Why would any media interaction in the past year have any bearing upon what this person did or didn’t witness five years ago? It simply doesn’t make sense.

The case of the Qatar whistleblower is slightly more complicated, largely because that person signed an affidavit in 2011, withdrawing allegations made about the Qatar bid, which had previously been put before a UK parliamentary select committee. My experience of that person is of somebody who was a hard-working and excellent operator while working for Qatar 2022, and has since been consistently committed to telling the truth, albeit under sometimes difficult circumstances.

Ignoring the fact that the evidence has never been withdrawn by the select committee and that legitimate questions remain unresolved about the circumstances of how and why the affidavit was signed, Eckert publicly disregards this person as a witness, while simultaneously blowing their cover. To say that this remains ethically dubious is an understatement.

More questions than answers have emerged today, but with regard to the two whistleblowers, some need to be answered very urgently:

Does Eckert’s summary accurately represent the full Garcia report in terms of the two whistleblowers?

Why were they promised anonymity only to have it blown in the summary report?

Why, of more than 70 witnesses, are these two people publicly singled out and berated?

What sort of interference has there been by Sepp Blatter and his allies in the summary report? Has the Australian whistleblower been smeared in some effort to try and protect Australia’s bid consultants – at least one of whom is a close friend of Blatter?

There are many other questions begged by today’s summary report, some of which are addressed in this excellent Guardian blog.

But one answer has come out of it, which is why Hans-Joachim Eckert is so perfectly suited to a FIFA ethics role. That is because he has shown none himself.