Nutmeg Radio

Someone drank some corruption juice.  Nan Yong, the head of China’s football federation, and two other senior officials, a vice-president of the federation and the head of the referees’ committee, were recently taken in for questioning by police as part of a crackdown on corruption and match-fixing.  Now that this embarrassing and continuing saga is spiraling out of control, China seems intent on taking the necessary steps to fix the problem.  But flushing out this cancer in Chinese football might be harder than imagined given the following comments:

Match-fixing has appeared in Chinese soccer leagues in recent years and we are strongly against such illegal behavior. It is a ‘cancer’ on soccer games and should be got rid of without mercy. Otherwise, Chinese soccer won’t develop in a stable and healthy environment. We have been cooperating with the Ministry of Public Security since the beginning of the year. To fight against match-fixing is an action widely welcomed by soccer fans and it will benefit the long-term development of Chinese soccer. I believe this year’s action will achieve our target and hope it will boost legislation covering match-fixing and gambling. Match-fixing is not a problem that can be solved by CFA or a sports governing body alone. We need solid cooperation from many government bodies including the Ministry of Public Security.

Powerful statement.  The problem is that this statement was made in November 2009 by Nan Yong, then CFA vice president.  This raises a larger question:  How do you fix a culture of corruption when those in charge of the fixing are often at the heart of the problem?

Now let’s be honest, this is not a Chinese problem.  Look at recent match-fixing and corruption scandals in Italy, Germany, and Eastern Europe.  Africa and Latin America have had their share of problems as well.  This isn’t even just a football problem.  This is what happens every time you combine money, power and influence.  You get a delicious corruption cocktail. Mmmm.  But the real question is who is going to drink it?

It comes down to character. But if we’re being real, we know that determining who is more likely to drink, and who is more likely to abstain is challenging.  However, I think you’ll find that people who make these decisions in high profile situations often have made similar decisions elsewhere.  Unfortunately, some people will consistently compromise their values for a quick fix, and others who know about these compromises will often turn their heads.

Let’s move away from football for a moment.  In Major League Baseball (MLB), are we to believe that top administrators were blind to the influence of performance enhancing drugs over the past few decades?  Doubt it.  As long as the results are in line with what administrators want to happen in the game, administrators will turn their heads to corrupting forces at a minimum, or in more extreme cases, administrators will participate in the corrupting process.  Certainly this doesn’t apply to all administrators, but we’ve seen this enough times to say that too many fall into the trap.

MLB turned its head when it came to performance enhancing drugs.  The product on field was mesmerizing.  The game was literally on steroids.  Players who were once lean and muscular turned into Incredible Hulks.  Home runs were flying out of the park.  These players fueled a new buzz around baseball.  As a result, administrators swept the issue of performance enhancing drugs under the table.  If the media didn’t eventually break the story, no one would be shocked if baseball administrators just continued to ignore these corrupt practices.  But the story broke and focus started shifting to individuals. Focusing on individuals, however, only creates the illusion that something is being done because the cover up is rarely with one or two people, it’s often with a larger group of administrators.  Prosecuting one or two people won’t solve what is really a deeper cultural problem of indifference.

It isn’t hard to make the case that turning your head to performance enhancing drugs is akin to match-fixing.  In both cases, willful ignorance by administrators skews match results and allows unethical practices to continue.   One method is more direct, but the adverse impact in both cases is significant.  In both cases, game administrators will say things like, “this behavior is not what the game is about,” or, “we’re taking the necessary steps to make sure this is an isolated issue.”  But at the end of the day, too many people too regularly succumb to their personal interests, their desire for immediate results, or a desire to hide serious issues rather than fix them.

Perhaps the culture around hiring top administrators is the real problem.  Whether in football, baseball or industry, hiring an administrator with a track record of short term deal-making and thinking may bring immediate benefits, but there are often adverse consequences in the long run.   This is a recipe for establishing a quick-fix culture that too often is ill-equipped to deal with systemic problems like corruption or cheating (see Chinese football and MLB).  Hiring a leader with a hardened value system and a track record in doing the right thing creates an organizational culture that is better equipped to deal with matters of principle.   A good business mind is important.  But as we’ve seen time and time again, principle is just as important as the ability to wheel and deal, and the lack of it can derail years of good business in the blink of an eye.