FIFA’s normalisation committees – what are they and how do they work?
There has been great discussion in recent weeks about FIFA’s powers of intervention following the decision to suspend all Russian teams (national representative and club) from FIFA competitions until further notice[1]. FIFA’s long-held powers of intervention in its member associations’ governance has long flown under the radar however and has been rarely publicised outside of the member associations in whose matters FIFA has intervened, demonstrated most recently in the cases of Kenya and Zimbabwe which have been somewhat overshadowed by FIFA’s suspension of all Russian teams. Such powers are exercised by imposing “normalisation committees” on member associations that FIFA determines are not complying with the FIFA Statutes (the “Statutes”)[2].
Out of FIFA’s 211 members, a significant number of associations have recent or current experience of normalisation committee intervention – including in Kuwait, Guinea, Guatemala, Greece, Argentina, Thailand, Mali, Benin, Madagascar[3],Trinidad and Tobago[4], Dominican Republic[5], Egypt[6] and Venezuela[7] to name a few. Recently normalisation committees have been established in Guinea and Chad[8] following a “series of irregularities that took place during the electoral process” of the Guinean Football Association and the Chadian FA’s “inability… to carry out an electoral process” in accordance with FIFA’s requirements. Most recently, FIFA has announced the suspension of football in Kenya and Zimbabwe, the result of which being that the two nations’ participation in qualifying for the men’s 2023 Africa Cup of Nations is in serious doubt.
In light of this, this article analyses the role of FIFA’s normalisation committees. Specifically, it looks at:
- When FIFA is entitled to intervene
- Circumstances in which FIFA has intervened
- How normalisation committees are constituted
- The scope of their powers
- What happens if there are disputes, including a case study on the Trinidad and Tobago Football Association
- Key examples of normalisation committees
- Comparisons with other sports
- Legitimacy of FIFA’s interventions
Continue reading this article...
Register with your email and password
Already a member? Sign in
Get access to all of the expert analysis and commentary at LawInSport including articles, webinars, conference videos and podcast transcripts. Find out more here.
- Tags: All Russia Athletics Federation | Argentina | Benin | Cameroon | Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) | FIFA | FIFA Code of Ethics | FIFA Governance Regulations | FIFA Statutes | Football | Governance | Greece | Guatemala | Guinea | Hellenic Football Federation | IAAF | Kuwait | Laws of the Game | Mali | Normalisation Committee | Regulation | Sierra Leone | Thailand
Related Articles
- A legal analysis of FIFA’s governance reforms: do they meet the standards of best global practice?
- The IOC’s intervention of AIBA – is this a turning point for international sports governance?
Written by
Hannah Kent
Hannah is an Associate in the Disputes and Regulatory team at Onside Law. She works with a range of clients across the sport and media sectors, from individuals to international sports governing bodies to commercial organisations. Hannah has significant experience in litigation, regulatory and disciplinary proceedings (including anti-corruption and anti-doping) and advisory work.
The WS Sports Law Conference
Sikhumbuzo NDEBELE
Thank Yu for a great articulation Africa is following ..
reply
Kelvin Omuojine
This is a good area to highlight. Normalisation committees play a significant role in ensuring compliance with FIFA regulatory requirements.
I do believe that the scope of normalisation committees could be expanded to aid national associations that have poor regulatory framework, not just waiting for crisis...many national associations are critically ill and this seems to be the closest thing to the (acceptable) intervention that is needed to improve their governance structures.
reply