O

n Wednesday, nine FIFA executives were arrested by the Swiss police, at the behest of the US Justice Department, on various corruption charges. The arrests of these executives show that a culture of corruption and misdeed has infested the world'€™s most beloved sport'€™s governing body.

The timing is uncanny. PSSI, the Indonesian soccer association, has been temporarily suspended and a new transition team has been formed in its place following mismanagement and widespread allegations of corruption. While this has created a controversy, I firmly believe that this is an opportunity to reform the organization. I understand that my position in the transition team could be construed as partisan, but I held this strong belief even prior to my joining the team.

There are several reasons that this transition team is a necessary evil (if it be an evil at all). Those reasons are not only personal but also professional.

At a personal level, like most people in Indonesia, soccer is near and dear to me. Therein lies our childhood and even adulthood memories; personal and communal. Thus, to see our soccer team performing at this level for so long saddens me deeply. Indonesia'€™s current FIFA ranking is 159. The national team has not won a single tournament since the Southeast Asian Games in 1991.

Our soccer team was in the World Cup. Yes, in 1938. Despite our loss in the first round, we were in the World Cup. But that was before our independence. While the appellation '€œIndonesia'€ had been coined, we were not there to represent Indonesia but the Dutch East Indies, a Dutch colony.

The most respectable result the national team ever achieved at the international level was to hold the Soviet Union to a draw in the 1956 Olympic Games, our only appearance in Olympic soccer.

Professionally, there are some reasons why saving the soccer association is so important. Those who disagree would argue that the transition team is a form of '€œpolitical intervention'€, and that the PSSI should be free from political intervention. I want to stress that this move by Youth and Sports Minister Imam Nahrawi should not be interpreted as political intervention.

True, the minister is a political appointee. Yet this move is motivated purely by the desire to reform our national soccer association and eventually improve the performance of our soccer, both national team and clubs. The effort to revamp the PSSI has also received support from President Joko '€œJokowi'€ Widodo. This show of support is meaningful, not only because it allows for more resources from the administration to ensure the success of the initiative, but also goes to show that the President cares about soccer and that, to some extent, he represents what the public wants.

In that context, reform of a sports organization by a political figure is nothing new, and not only in Indonesia. In 2009, US President Barack Obama called for the introduction of a playoff system to the Bowl Championship Series (BCS), a system considered fairer and more competitive. The criticism of the BCS system is how the ranking, and ultimately the right to play in a bowl or championship, is determined by a computer algorithm. This created a problem and question of equity, especially when an undefeated American football team did not play in a championship game, while a team in a region with tough competition but with one or two losses got the right to play in the championship.

The Justice Department then looked into the legality of the BCS and investigated if the BCS violated any US antitrust laws or consumer protection laws. In the end, the BCS relented and created a playoff system for the teams vying for the national championship.

While there was no real action taken, as the BCS relented, can the call and threat to change by Obama and the possible legal investigation by the Justice Department that followed be interpreted as '€œpolitical interference?'€ Not necessarily.

Therefore, the desire to reform a sports organization, using a publicly acceptable method, should not be interpreted as government interference, even when it is carried out by a political figure. With the soccer association transition team, the minister has acted on public concern that has no other outlet.

This leads us to the second reason the move is justifiable. Those who disagree with the transition team argue that '€œexternal interference,'€ especially political, is not warranted since the PSSI should be '€œindependent,'€ according to FIFA, and that any reform should be internal.

What happens, though, when the call to reform is not heeded, when an opportunity to apply '€œself-correcting'€ measures is not taken?

Soccer, as a sport, is a public concern, and thus, as a result, a public interest. Not only that, soccer clubs and the national soccer association use publicly funded stadia, use the public airwaves to broadcast games, get financial incentives from the government and influence the market surrounding soccer. From those perspectives, while sports organizations could claim independence, they cannot interpret independence as insulation from any external forces, and operate without any sort of accountability.

Finally, it is important to understand that soccer is a matter of national interest. National interest is a concept in which countries use their distinctive competence to advance their national agenda. Countries around the world use sport, in this case soccer, to boost their national pride. Several nations have, allegedly, used any means necessary, including bribery, to make sure that the World Cup is held in their respective countries.

The reason is that soccer, unlike any other sport, is so popular that seeing a nation succeed at soccer boosts the image of that nation, giving the country more leverage of soft power, which in the end enhances the country'€™s national agenda. Brazil, for example, is known as the country of soccer. Our national soccer team'€™s lack of competitiveness justifies the use of the national interest argument to reform the PSSI.
______________________

The writer is a member of the PSSI transition team. The views expressed are personal.