The Center for Grassroots Oversight

This page can be viewed at http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=financial_crisis_5&scale=4


Context of 'May 4-October 15, 1982: ’Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act’ to Revitalize Housing Industry Becomes Law'

This is a scalable context timeline. It contains events related to the event May 4-October 15, 1982: ’Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act’ to Revitalize Housing Industry Becomes Law. You can narrow or broaden the context of this timeline by adjusting the zoom level. The lower the scale, the more relevant the items on average will be, while the higher the scale, the less relevant the items, on average, will be.

Rep. Fernand J. St. Germain (D-RI), with 28 co-sponsors, introduces HR 6267, the “Net Worth Guarantee Act” officially entitled “A bill to revitalize the housing industry by strengthening the financial stability of home mortgage lending institutions and ensuring the availability of home mortgage loans.” (Library of Congress 5/19/2008) As introduced, the bill would create a fund for loans to those troubled banks and savings and loans institutions that would have to be put into receivership if their condition deteriorates to a small degree from the bill’s qualifying requirements. The provisions are as follows:
bullet Amendments to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (which regulates the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC), the National Housing Act (which regulates the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, FHLBB), and the Federal Credit Union Act (the National Credit Union Administration Board, NCUAB) so that the regulated bodies can guarantee the net worth of qualified insured institutions.
bullet Requirements that a qualifying depository institution be one that is threatened with insolvency, as measured by very low net worth and a recent trend of losses; that the institution be one that mainly serves the residential mortgage industry, as measured by the share of its loans or other assets that are held in or collateralized by residential mortgages or real estate; and that it continue in this service under the net worth guarantee, as measured by the share of its new deposits that it devotes to certain types of mortgages.
bullet Rules for determining the initial amount of the guarantee, and for either extending or phasing out the assistance to a given institution. Extensions after two years are to be contingent upon a showing that “certified continued earnings losses are caused by general market conditions and not by the actions of the institution.”
bullet Creation of a Net Worth Guarantee Account in the US Treasury in the amount of $8.5 billion to cover the payment of any guarantees.
bullet A sunset date for new extensions of guarantees.
bullet An oversight process in which the three bank regulating bodies report quarterly to Congress on their activities in granting guarantees, and the comptroller of the currency provides semiannual audits. (Library of Congress 5/14/2008; Library of Congress 5/14/2008)
Fate in the House - The Net Worth Guarantee Act passes the House of Representatives on May 20, 1982, with amendments that extend the coverage to qualifying State-chartered commercial banks, and qualifying national banks whether or not they are members of the FDIC; that add investment in residential housing co-operative stock and mortgages on multifamily rental projects to the qualifying activities for sustaining the guarantee; that alter the exit path from the program; that add compliance with community credit provision requirements under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977; that make the Treasury senior to holders of existing subordinated debt of any guaranteed bank that later winds up in receivership; and that clearly give the sunset date as September 30, 1984. (Library of Congress 5/14/2008; Library of Congress 5/14/2008; Library of Congress 5/14/2008)
Eventual Fate - With substantial amendments that address other banking regulatory issues besides the net worth of depository institutions, the bill finally passes the Senate under several short titles, of which the primary is “Depository Institutions Amendments of 1982,” superseding S.2879 sponsored by Sen. E.J. “Jake” Garn. The bill is enacted with the signature of President Ronald Reagan on October 15, 1982 as the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982. (Library of Congress 5/14/2008)

The House Banking Committee approves H.R. 6267, the Net Worth Guarantee Act, by a vote of 25 to 15, with three abstaining. The approval is the first action of Congress to provide direct and specific financial assistance to troubled thrifts, although by a reported estimate in the New York Times, most of the nation’s 4,500 thrift depositories are “losing money” by this time. (Noble 5/12/1982, pp. D1, D13) Voting on the bill, which was introduced into the House by Representative and committee chairman Fernand J. St. Germain (D-RI) on May 4 (see May 4-October 15, 1982), is largely partisan: Republican members generally favor an alternative proposal by Rep. Chalmers P. Wylie (R-OH) that differs in qualifying firms at a higher current net worth, and in allowing regulators discretion over this qualification, although debate on the Wylie amendments is short-circuited by a motion to table the amendment made by Rep. Frank Annunzio (D-IL). (Noble 5/12/1982, pp. D1, D13) The Wylie provisions form the basis for the bill S.2531 which is introduced into the Senate on May 14, 1982 (see May 14, 1982). (Noble 5/12/1982, pp. D1, D13; Library of Congress 5/19/2008)

The Capital Assistance Act of 1982 is introduced by Sen. E.J. (Jake) Garn (R-UT) and three co-sponsors under the title, “A bill to provide flexibility to the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to deal with financially distressed institutions.” (Library of Congress 5/20/2008; Library of Congress 5/20/2008) The bill provides the following:
bullet Amendments to the National Housing Act and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act so that the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) may buy capital certificates from institutions that they regulate, for the purpose of either increasing or maintaining the capital of those institutions.
bullet Criteria that qualifying institutions must meet to receive this assistance. The criteria differ from those required by the Net Worth Guarantee Act importantly in requiring a prior net worth of three percent of assets, instead of two percent in the House version.
bullet Parameters of the initial capital certificates, and provision for the subsequent modification of those parameters at the discretion of the FSLIC and FDIC.
bullet Restriction of aid to cases in which this course of action is less costly than liquidation of the institution would be. (Library of Congress 5/20/2008) The most important difference between the Capital Assistance Act (CAA) and the Net Worth Guarantee Act (NWGA) is that the CAA is meant to avoid the need for a Congressional appropriation of funds. Instead of establishing a Treasury account to be drawn on to fund the assistance, as does the NWGA, the CAA would permit the assisting agencies, FSLIC or FDIC, to give the thrifts promissory notes in exchange for the thrifts capital certificates. (Staff 5/15/1982) The Capital Assistance Act of 1982 is evidently the bill that Rep. Wylie promised several days previously would be introduced into the Senate, on the occasion of the approval by the House Banking Committee of the Net Worth Guarantee Act without the amendments that Wylie had offered for that bill. The new bill in the Senate has several features of Wylie’s amendments. (Noble 5/12/1982) According to Sen. Garn, Treasury Secretary Donald T. Regan also contributed to the new bill.
Eventual Fate - On August 19, while under consideration in the Senate Banking Committe, the key provisions of S.2531 will be incorporated into S.2879 and passed to the floor of the Senate the next day. Bill S.2879 will be passed by the Senate on September 24, and ultimately incorporated into H.R.6267, the Garn-St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982. (Library of Congress 5/20/2008; Library of Congress 5/20/2008)

Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA).Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA). [Source: That's My Congress (.com)]The House Republican leadership cancels a vote to renew the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA—see August 6, 1965 and June 29, 1989) after a number of House Republicans declare their opposition to renewing key portions of the legislation concerning the requirement of bilingual ballots and continued federal oversight of voting practices in some Southern states. Eight months ago, Congressional Republicans announced they intended to take the lead in renewing the VRA (see October 4, 2005). The press reports that House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) was taken off-guard by the vehemence of the opposition within his party; he and other senior House Republicans believed that renewal of the VRA was on track. President Bush has said he supports renewing the VRA. In early May, House Republicans and Democrats joined on the steps of the Capitol to announce bipartisan support for the renewal of the law. However, some Southern Republicans argue that the law has served its purpose and is no longer necessary. They are now joined by Republicans from other states who resist providing ballots in languages other than English. Hastert says the Republican leadership “is committed to passing the Voting Rights Act legislation as soon as possible,” while some House Republicans say it is unclear whether the issue will be resolved before the Independence Day recess. Hastert and other House Republican leaders apparently did not anticipate the surge of anti-immigrant sentiment among their colleagues, which fuels the opposition to bilingual ballots. A previous attempt by Senate Republicans to include a provision in the VRA proclaiming English the “national language” failed. Seventy-nine House Republicans, led by Steve King (R-IA), an outspoken opponent of immigration, signed a letter written by King objecting to the VRA’s provision for bilingual ballots in precincts with large Hispanic and Asian populations. The requirement is costly and unnecessary, King wrote, adding, “The multilingual ballot mandate encourages the linguistic division of our nation and contradicts the ‘Melting Pot’ ideal that has made us the most successful multi-ethnic nation on earth.” Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) says: “A lot of it looks as if these are some old boys from the South who are trying to do away with it. But these old boys are trying to make it constitutional enough that it will withstand the scrutiny of the Supreme Court.” King said in committee, “There is no need to print ballots in any language other than English.” When King’s provision to end multilingual requirements was removed in committee, King and his fellow anti-immigration Republicans publicly withdrew their support for the VRA. Charles Whitlow Norwood (R-GA) says flatly: “What people are really upset about is bilingual ballots. The American people want this to be an English-speaking nation.” House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) says: “Clearly, there are some on the Republican side who object to this legislation, and they forced the leadership’s hand today. House Democrats stand in virtual unanimous support for this important bill.” Mel Watt (D-NC), the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, says, “We fear that pulling the bill could send the wrong message about whether the bill enjoys broad bipartisan support and that delaying consideration until after the July 4 recess could give those with partisan intentions space and time to politicize the issue.” Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights says in a statement, “We are extremely disappointed that the House did not vote today to renew and restore the Voting Rights Act because a small band of miscreants, at the last moment, hijacked this bipartisan, bicameral bill.” Henderson’s colleague Nancy Zirkin agrees, saying: “The fact of the matter is that you have a small group of members who have hijacked this bill, and many of these individuals represent states that have been in violation for a long time. We believe these individuals do not want the Voting Rights Act reauthorized.” (King 1/28/2006; Hulse 6/22/2006; Washington Post 6/22/2006)
Opposition Letter Written by Far-Right Anti-Immigration Advocate? - Citizen investigators later demonstrate that many portions of the King letter may not have been written by King or his staffers, but by a representative of two far-right anti-immigration groups, NumbersUSA and ProEnglish. Both organizations belong to a network of groups operated by anti-immigration leader John Tanton (see February 2009). The provisions in the King letter were apparently written by K.C. McAlpin, a member of NumbersUSA and the executive director of ProEnglish. The latter group proclaims itself “the nation’s leading advocate of official English,” working “through the courts and in the court of public opinion to defend English’s historic role as the common, unifying language of the United States of America, and to persuade lawmakers to adopt English as the official language at all levels of government.” The investigators will be unable to prove McAlpin’s authorship beyond dispute, but through comparison of the King letter with McAlpin’s written testimony to Congress in November 2005, they find significant conceptual and linguistic similarities. The investigators will posit: “Given that the King letter posted at [the US House Web site, before being removed] was authored by McAlpin on software registered to NumbersUSA, coupled with its striking similarities to McAlpin’s testimony, only one of two possible causes seem plausible. Either King copied his letter from ProEnglish literature almost word for word, and then asked McAlpin, or someone using his computer, to type up a copy to post at the House of Representatives Web site, or McAlpin authored the letter himself. Either way, the letter that 79 Representatives signed to force the cancellation of the renewal of the VRA came from ProEnglish.” (King 1/28/2006; Duke Falconer 7/12/2006)

House Democratic leaders Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) publish a jointly written op-ed in USA Today, pressing for the Democrats’ health care reform package. They acknowledge the innate controversy inherent in the issue, and write: “We believe it is healthy for such a historic effort to be subject to so much scrutiny and debate. The failure of past attempts is a reminder that health insurance reform is a defining moment in our nation’s history—it is well worth the time it takes to get it right. We are confident that we will get this right.” They declare flatly that the House “will approve” a reform bill “in September.” However, they note, “an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue” (see June 30, 2009, July 6, 2009, July 25, 2009, July 27, 2009, July 27, 2009, July 31, 2009, August 1, 2009, August 1, 2009, August 2, 2009, August 3, 2009, August 3, 2009, August 3, 2009, August 3, 2009, August 4, 2009, August 4, 2009, August 5, 2009, August 5, 2009, August 6, 2009, August 6, 2009, and August 6-8, 2009).… These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views—but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades. Health care is complex. It touches every American life. It drives our economy. People must be allowed to learn the facts.” After this screed, Hoyer and Pelosi give a brief defense and explanation of the health care reform package:
bullet It will provide more patient choice;
bullet It will allow Americans the freedom to keep their current plan or move to a different plan;
bullet It will take away the power of the insurance companies to determine health care choices;
bullet It will lower health care costs;
bullet It will promote preventative care.
“This month, despite the disruptions, members of Congress will listen to their constituents back home and explain reform legislation,” they write. “We are confident that our principles of affordable, quality health care will stand up to any and all critics.” (Hoyer and Pelosi 8/10/2009)

In an op-ed for USA Today, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) takes the White House to task for “letting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] and Congress run health care reform into the ground,” and says that Republicans have always “stood ready to work with him to pass bipartisan health care reforms that reflect the priorities of struggling American families and small businesses.” Boehner says Pelosi and the Congressional Democrats have crafted a bill that “puts Washington in control of Americans’ health care—something most Americans staunchly oppose.” He then accuses President Obama of trying to “spin the American people” about what he calls the “hopelessly flawed bill.” He terms the bill “radical,” and claims, falsely, that Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer labeled opponents of the bill “un-American” (see August 10, 2009—Pelosi and Hoyer wrote that “[d]rowning out opposing views is simply un-American”). Boehner says that neither Republicans nor anyone else “condone… the actions of those who disrupt public events,” but decries those who claim the dissent against the bill is in any way “manufactured” (see April 14, 2009, April 15, 2009, May 29, 2009, July 27, 2009, August 4, 2009, August 5, 2009, Before August 6, 2009, August 6, 2009, August 6-7, 2009, August 10, 2009, and August 12, 2009). He says Obama is lying about the portion of the bill that would allow Americans to keep their present health care, and cites the debunked study by the Lewin Group (see July 27, 2009) as evidence. He says the bill would add $239 billion to the deficit over the next decade, says Obama is lying about not cutting Medicare benefits, and says Obama is lying when he says the bill would not lead to health care “rationing.” Boehner concludes by claiming that “Republicans are offering better solutions that would make quality health care more affordable and accessible for every American,” and calls on Obama to “scrap this costly plan, start over, and work with Republicans on reforms that reflect the priorities of the American people.” (Boehner 8/13/2009) Liberal news and advocacy Web site Think Progress notes that Boehner’s office has sent out messages promoting the town hall disruptions, and notes that Boehner’s claims of “rationing” are wrong. (Corley 8/13/2009)

The Football Association agrees England will play an international friendly match in Thailand in the summer of 2011 in an attempt to influence the vote of Worawi Makudi, a Thai member of FIFA’s executive committee that is to vote on the hosts of the 2018 World Cup. This game is one a series of matches designed by England to influence executive committee votes; such matches will also be played with Egypt as well as Trinidad and Tobago. (Mackay 4/23/2010) However, Makudi will vote for the Spain/Portugal bid (see Around 2:00 p.m. December 2, 2010) and England will then cancel the game in Thailand (see December 3, 2010).

Former World Cup-winning captain and coach Franz Beckenbauer, now a member of FIFA’s executive committee that will vote on the 2018 and 2022 World Cup hosts, backs Australia’s bid to organize the 2022 event. “Australia was a perfect host for the Olympics,” Beckenbauer says. “They know how to handle these big events. The football World Cup—it’s even bigger than the Olympics because it’s more cities, it’s more spectacular than the Olympics—I think you can do it.” He adds: “Australia has shown the world many, many times that [they] can handle these big events. There is no doubt that Australia can host the World Cup and organise the World Cup.” (Fox Sports 10/26/2010) Beckenbauer does not specifically say he will vote for Australia, but it seems likely that the one vote it will get is from him (see Around 2:30 p.m. December 2, 2010).

The South American Football Confederation, Comnebol, decides that the three representatives of its members on FIFA’s executive committee will vote for the Spain/Portugal bid to host the 2018 World Cup. (Guardian 11/24/2010) The three representatives are Julio Grondona (Argentina), Ricardo Teixeira (Brazil), and Nicolas Leoz (Paraguay). (BBC 12/2/2010)

Mohamed bin Hammam, a Qatari, senior FIFA executive committee member, and president of the Asian Football Confederation, denies that he has agreed to back the Spain/Portugal bid for the 2018 World Cup in return for Spain backing the Qatari bid. The claim was recently reported in the Spanish daily Marca, which purported to carry an interview with him expressing his support for Spain/Portugal. “A Spanish newspaper, called Marca, which I have never heard of, completely fabricated an interview with me, pretending that Asia and I will support Spain’s bid,” says bin Hammam. “The Asian executive committee had taken a decision to support Europe in 2018. However, no decision was taken to back any one country. We agreed to give the four Asian members the freedom to select the country that they deem appropriate.” (Daily Mail 11/28/2010) It will later be reported that bin Hammam did indeed vote for Spain/Portugal (see May 1, 2011).

England and South Korea agree to vote for each other as potential hosts of the World Cup finals in 2018 and 2022. The deal is concluded by the English and South Korean members of FIFA’s executive committee, Geoff Thompson and Mong Joon Chung, over a whisky with British Prime Minister David Cameron. Chung is to vote for England to host the finals in 2018, whereas Thompson is to vote for South Korea in 2022. Thompson will carry out his end of the bargain (see Around 2:30 p.m. December 2, 2010), although Chung will not (see (December 1, 2010) and Around 2:00 p.m. December 2, 2010). (Gibson 12/4/2010)

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin calls officials in the government of South Korea to get them to influence a forthcoming vote to be cast by South Korean FIFA executive committee member Mong Joon Chung. Putin wants Chung to vote for Russia’s bid to host the 2018 World Cup. The leverage Putin uses to get the officials to pressure Chung is that South Korea needs Russian support in dealings with North Korea. Chung, a hugely wealthy member of the Hyundai dynasty with close links to South Korea’s ruling party, is then asked to vote for Russia. He has a pact with England to vote for its bid (see Before December 1, 2010), but does as he is now asked and votes for Russia (see Around 2:00 p.m. December 2, 2010). (Gibson 12/4/2010)

FIFA president Sepp Blatter warns fellow members of the organization’s executive committee of the “evils of the media” shortly before they vote on who will host the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. The remarks will be interpreted by some as encouragement not to vote for the English campaign, as the English media outlets Panorama and the Sunday Times have recently exposed corruption at FIFA. England will actually be eliminated in the first round of voting (see Around 2:00 p.m. December 2, 2010). Andy Anson, the chief executive of the failed English bid, will later say: “I think that was unhelpful—the last thing those guys hear before they go and tick the box is the evil of the media. That is not helpful and actually inaccurate. I was told by someone who was in the room that that’s the last thing they were told by Sepp Blatter. There was a final sum-up before they voted and I think it was at the beginning of that.” (Press Association (London) 12/3/2011) It is unclear who the “someone who was in the room” is. However, one of the voters in the room is Geoff Thompson, chairman of England’s bid. (BBC 12/2/2010)

England are eliminated in the first round of voting for the 2018 World Cup, after receiving only two votes. The full results of the first round and the FIFA executive committee members who voted for the various potential hosts are:
bullet England: two votes. Geoff Thompson (England) and Issa Hayatou (Cameroon). (BBC 12/2/2010)
bullet Holland/Belgium: four votes. Michel D’Hooghe (Belgium) and Michel Platini (France, see December 4, 2010). (BBC 12/2/2010)
bullet Spain/Portugal: seven votes. Angel Maria Villar Llona (Spain), Julio Grondona (Argentina), Ricardo Teixeira (Brazil), Nicolas Leoz (Paraguay, see November 24, 2010), Mohamed bin Hammam (Qatar, see May 1, 2011), Worawi Makudi (Thailand), and Hany Abo Rida (Egypt). (Kelso 11/25/2010)
bullet Russia: nine votes. Vitaly Mutko (Russia) and Chuck Blazer (USA, see December 10, 2010).
The other members of the executive committee who voted (two for Holland/Belgium, the rest for Russia) are Sepp Blatter (Switzerland), Mong Joon Chung (South Korea), Jack Warner (Trinidad and Tobago), Senes Erzik (Turkey), Junji Ogura (Japan), Marios Lefkaritis (Cyprus), Jacques Anouma (Ivory Coast), Franz Beckenbauer (Germany), and Rafael Salguero (Guatemala). (BBC 12/2/2010) As there is no absolute majority in the first round, the vote will go to a second round. (BBC 12/2/2010)

FIFA’s executive committee votes to award the 2018 World Cup finals to Russia, which receives an absolute majority in the second round of the ballot. England was eliminated in the first round (see Around 2:00 p.m. December 2, 2010). The full results of the second round and the FIFA executive committee members who voted for the various potential hosts are:
bullet Holland/Belgium: two votes. Michel D’Hooghe (Belgium). (BBC 12/2/2010)
bullet Spain/Portugal: seven votes. Angel Maria Villar Llona, Julio Grondona (Argentina), Ricardo Teixeira (Brazil), Nicolas Leoz (Paraguay, see November 24, 2010), Mohamed bin Hammam (Qatar, see May 1, 2011), Worawi Makudi (Thailand), and Hany Abo Rida (Egypt). (Kelso 11/25/2010)
bullet Russia: 13 votes. Vitaly Mutko (Russia) and Chuck Blazer (USA, see December 10, 2010).
The other members of the executive committee who voted (one for Holland/Belgium, the rest for Russia) are Sepp Blatter (Switzerland), Michel Platini (France), Mong Joon Chung (South Korea), Jack Warner (Trinidad and Tobago), Senes Erzik (Turkey), Geoff Thompson (England), Issa Hayatou (Cameroon), Junji Ogura (Japan), Marios Lefkaritis (Cyprus), Jacques Anouma (Ivory Coast), Franz Beckenbauer (Germany), and Rafael Salguero (Guatemala). (BBC 12/2/2010)

Australia is eliminated in the first round of voting for the 2022 World Cup hosts, after receiving only one vote. The full results of the first round and the FIFA executive committee members who voted for the various potential hosts are:
bullet Australia: one vote. Franz Beckenbauer (see October 26, 2010).
bullet Japan: two votes. Junji Ogura (Japan).
bullet United States: three votes. Chuck Blazer (USA).
bullet South Korea: four votes. Mong Joon Chung (South Korea) and Geoff Thompson (England, see Before December 1, 2010).
bullet Qatar: 11 votes. Mohamed bin Hammam (Qatar). (BBC 12/2/2010; BBC 12/2/2010)
The other FIFA executive committee members who vote are Sepp Blatter (Switzerland), Jack Warner (Trinidad and Tobago), Senes Erzik (Turkey), Marios Lefkaritis (Cyprus), Jacques Anouma (Ivory Coast), Rafael Salguero (Guatemala), Geoff Thompson (England), Issa Hayatou (Cameroon), Michel D’Hooghe (Belgium), Michel Platini (France), Angel Maria Villar Llona (Spain), Julio Grondona (Argentina), Ricardo Teixeira (Brazil), Nicolas Leoz (Paraguay), Worawi Makudi (Thailand), Hany Abo Rida (Egypt), and Vitaly Mutko (Russia). (BBC 12/2/2010) As there is no absolute majority in the first round, the vote will go to a second round. (BBC 12/2/2010)

Japan is eliminated in the second round of voting for the 2022 World Cup hosts, after receiving only two votes. Australia was previously eliminated in the first round (see Around 2:30 p.m. December 2, 2010). The full results of the second round and the FIFA executive committee members who voted for the various potential hosts are:
bullet Japan: two votes. Junji Ogura (Japan).
bullet United States: five votes. Chuck Blazer (USA).
bullet South Korea: five votes. Mong Joon Chung (South Korea) and Geoff Thompson (England, see Before December 1, 2010).
bullet Qatar: 10 votes. Mohamed bin Hammam (Qatar). (BBC 12/2/2010; BBC 12/2/2010)
The other FIFA executive committee members who vote are Sepp Blatter (Switzerland), Jack Warner (Trinidad and Tobago), Senes Erzik (Turkey), Marios Lefkaritis (Cyprus), Jacques Anouma (Ivory Coast), Franz Beckenbauer (Germany), Rafael Salguero (Guatemala), Issa Hayatou (Cameroon), Michel D’Hooghe (Belgium), Michel Platini (France), Angel Maria Villar Llona (Spain), Julio Grondona (Argentina), Ricardo Teixeira (Brazil), Nicolas Leoz (Paraguay), Worawi Makudi (Thailand), Hany Abo Rida (Egypt), and Vitaly Mutko (Russia). (BBC 12/2/2010) As there is no absolute majority in the second round, the vote will go to a third round. (BBC 12/2/2010)

South Korea is eliminated in the third round of voting for the 2022 World Cup hosts, after receiving only five votes. Australia and Japan have already been eliminated in previous rounds (see Around 2:30 p.m. December 2, 2010 and Around 2:30 p.m. December 2, 2010). The full results of the third round and the FIFA executive committee members who voted for the various potential hosts are:
bullet South Korea: five votes. Mong Joon Chung (South Korea) and Geoff Thompson (England, see Before December 1, 2010).
bullet United States: six votes. Chuck Blazer (USA).
bullet Qatar: 11 votes. Mohamed bin Hammam (Qatar). (BBC 12/2/2010; BBC 12/2/2010)
The other FIFA executive committee members who vote are Sepp Blatter (Switzerland), Jack Warner (Trinidad and Tobago), Senes Erzik (Turkey), Marios Lefkaritis (Cyprus), Jacques Anouma (Ivory Coast), Franz Beckenbauer (Germany), Rafael Salguero (Guatemala), Issa Hayatou (Cameroon), Michel D’Hooghe (Belgium), Michel Platini (France), Angel Maria Villar Llona (Spain), Julio Grondona (Argentina), Ricardo Teixeira (Brazil), Nicolas Leoz (Paraguay), Worawi Makudi (Thailand), Hany Abo Rida (Egypt), Junji Ogura (Japan), and Vitaly Mutko (Russia). (BBC 12/2/2010) As there is no absolute majority in the third round, the vote will go to a fourth round. (BBC 12/2/2010)

FIFA’s executive committee votes to award the 2022 World Cup finals to Qatar, which receives an absolute majority in the fourth round of the ballot. Australia, Japan, and South Korea have already been eliminated in previous rounds (see Around 2:30 p.m. December 2, 2010, Around 2:30 p.m. December 2, 2010, and Around 2:30 p.m. December 2, 2010). The full results of the fourth round and the FIFA executive committee members who voted for the various potential hosts are:
bullet United States: eight votes. Chuck Blazer (USA).
bullet Qatar: 14 votes. Mohamed bin Hammam (Qatar). (BBC 12/2/2010; BBC 12/2/2010)
The other FIFA executive committee members who vote are Sepp Blatter (Switzerland), Jack Warner (Trinidad and Tobago), Senes Erzik (Turkey), Marios Lefkaritis (Cyprus), Jacques Anouma (Ivory Coast), Franz Beckenbauer (Germany), Mong Joon Chung (South Korea), Geoff Thompson (England), Rafael Salguero (Guatemala), Issa Hayatou (Cameroon), Michel D’Hooghe (Belgium), Michel Platini (France), Angel Maria Villar Llona (Spain), Julio Grondona (Argentina), Ricardo Teixeira (Brazil), Nicolas Leoz (Paraguay), Worawi Makudi (Thailand), Hany Abo Rida (Egypt), Junji Ogura (Japan), and Vitaly Mutko (Russia). (BBC 12/2/2010)

The Football Association decides to cancel a friendly match scheduled to be played by England in Thailand at the end of the season. The match was agreed earlier in the year in an attempt to induce Worawi Makudi, a Thai member of FIFA’s executive committee, to vote for England’s bid to host the 2018 World Cup (see Shortly Before April 23, 2010). However, Makudi voted for Spain (see Around 2:00 p.m. December 2, 2010), and England now cancels the game in retaliation. (Kelso 12/3/2010)

British journalist Charles Sale says that UEFA president and FIFA executive committee member Michel Platini voted for Holland/Belgium in the first round of voting for the 2018 World Cup hosts (see Around 2:00 p.m. December 2, 2010). He adds that Platini voted for Russia in the second round. (Sale 12/4/2010) It is unclear how Sale could know this, as the vote is secret. However, the details of the vote indicate that two or three voters switched from Holland/Belgium in the first round to Russia in the second. (BBC 12/2/2010)

Chuck Blazer, the US representative on FIFA’s executive committee, says he voted for Russia to host the 2018 World Cup. “I voted for Russia,” Blazer says. “England clearly had a great bid. But in the end, I look at England and say, ‘What more would we have when we’re finished other than what I am certain would have been a great World Cup?’ I believe that when we’re finished in Russia, we’ll have accomplished a lot of different things. We can open up a market that is important from a world perspective.” (Daily Telegraph 12/10/2010)

Qatar Sports Investments (QSI) hires lawyer Laurent Platini, son of UEFA president Michel Platini. QSI, an arm of the Qatari government, owns a majority interest in the leading French club Paris St. Germain (PSG—see May 31, 2011) and is also Barcelona’s shirt sponsor. Michel Platini voted for Qatar to host the 2022 World Cup (see Around 2:30 p.m. December 2, 2010). (Veysey 1/28/2011) Platini is also one of the men responsible for ensuring PSG complies with incoming financial fair play regulations, something it may have difficulty doing. (Observer 1/29/2011)

British newspaper The Observer states that Mohamed bin Hammam, a Qatari, president of the Asian Football Confederation, and a senior member of FIFA’s executive committee, voted for the Spain/Portugal bid for the 2018 World Cup in December 2010. Shortly before the vote, bin Hammam denied he had a deal with Spain/Portugal to vote for their bid for 2018 in return for them voting for Qatar in 2022 (see November 28, 2010). (Observer 5/1/2011) It is unclear how The Observer knows this, as information about who voted for which bid is secret. (BBC 12/2/2010)

A $40,000 bribe paid on behalf of Mohamed bin Hammam to Fred Lunn, vice president of the Bahamas FA.A $40,000 bribe paid on behalf of Mohamed bin Hammam to Fred Lunn, vice president of the Bahamas FA. [Source: FIFA] (click image to enlarge)Following an address to the Caribbean Football Union (CFU) by FIFA presidential candidate Mohamed bin Hammam, $40,000 bribes are handed out to CFU member offcials in an attempt to get them to vote for bin Hammam. The meeting is held at the Hyatt Regency hotel in Trinidad, where bin Hammam, who had paid for the officials’ travel and accommodation, presents his manifesto. Following the pitch, the officials, from 25 football associations, representing 25 votes out of 208, are asked to go into a conference room. The first to enter is Fred Lunn, vice president of the Bahamas FA. He is handed a large brown envelope and, when he opens it, according to a later affidavit, “stacks of US$100 fell out and on to the table.” Lunn is not authorized to accept such a gift, but is urged to do so by a CFU official. After accepting the money, he texts his superior, Bahamas FA president Anton Sealey. Sealey then calls him to say that “under no circumstances would the Bahamas FA accept such a cash gift.” Lunn takes a picture of the money and then returns to the conference room. There he finds a queue of officials waiting to collect their bribes, which prompts him to again text Sealey: “[A] lot of the boys taking the cash, this is sad given the breaking news on the TV CNN [about corruption charges in the 2022 World Cup bid process].… I’m truly surprised its happening at this conference.” Sealey’s reply is: “I’m disappointed but not surprised. It is important that [we] maintain our integrity when the story is told. That money will not make or break our association. You can leave with your head high.” The next morning Lunn attends a CFU meeting addressed by FIFA vice president and CONCACAF president Jack Warner. “Mr Warner stated that he had instructed Mr Bin Hammam to bring the cash equivalent of any gift he had intended to bring for the people attending this meeting,” Lunn will later say in the affidavit. “Mr Warner then stated that the money could be used for any purpose… for grass-roots programs or any purpose the individuals saw fit.” By this time Sealey has informed CONCACAF official Chuck Blazer, who will have a report prepared into the matter at the request of FFIA secretary general Jerome Valcke and then go public with the allegations (see May 24, 2011). (Press Association (London) 5/30/2011)

Chuck Blazer, an American member of FIFA’s executive committee, goes public with allegations that Mohamed bin Hammam, one of two candidates in the forthcoming election for FIFA’s presidency, gave bribes to as many as two dozen voters. Blazer alleges that Jack Warner, the president of the North American football grouping CONCACAF of which Blazer is general secretary, was involved. According to Blazer, at a meeting of the Carribean Football Union (CFU) Hammam, aided by Warner and two other CFU officials, Debbie Minguell and Jason Sylvester, offered cash to CFU members in return for voting for him (see May 10, 2011). (Press Association (London) 5/25/2011)

FIFA announces that its ethics committee will investigate two members of the organization’s executive committee, Mohamed bin Hammam and Jack Warner, as well as two Carribean Football Union officials, Debbie Minguell and Jason Sylvester. The announcement follows allegations of vote-buying made by fellow executive committee member Chuck Blazer (see May 24, 2011). The officials are to attend an ethics committee meeting in four days’ time to discuss the allegations. Bin Hammam is currently running for FIFA president, with the election scheduled to take place next week. Bin Hammam’s rival is the Swiss Sepp Blatter, so the ethics committee hearing will not be attended by its chairman, Claudio Sulser, who is also Swiss. Instead the meeting will be chaired by Petrus Damaseb, a judge from Namibia and the committee’s deputy chairman. (Press Association (London) 5/25/2011)

FIFA presidential candidate Mohamed bin Hammam refers his opponent, the incumbent Sepp Blatter, for an ethics invesigation. This follows the opening of an ethics investigation into bin Hammam, who offered bribes to 25 voters in the Caribbean (see May 10, 2011, May 24, 2011, and May 25, 2011). According to bin Hammam, the report into the matter that forms the basis of the charges against him contains “statements according to which Mr Blatter, the incumbent Fifa president, was informed of, but did not oppose, payments allegedly made to members of the Caribbean Football Union.” Reportedly, FIFA vice president Jack Warner, who is also under an ethics investigation, told Blatter of the payments. If this were true, it would be an ethics violation by Blatter, as FIFA officials are under a duty to disclose any evidence of improper conduct to the organization’s secretary general. Bin Hammam’s allegations are first made in a letter to FIFA secretary general Jerome Valcke, but are then reported in the media. (Gibson 5/26/2011) FIFA’s ethics committee will open an investigation of Blatter (see May 26, 2011).

FIFA’s ethics committee opens an investigation into the organization’s president, Sepp Blatter. The investigation was proposed by Blatter’s presidential rival in a forthcoming election, Mohamed bin Hammam (see May 26, 2011). According to bin Hammam, Blatter knew of but did not oppose bribes bin Hammam is said to have offered 25 presidential voters. Blatter did not report the bribes, although FIFA’s code of ethics apparently places a duty to report such conduct on all officials. (Wilson 5/27/2011) The ethics committee will clear Blatter of the allegations, saying the bribes had not actually been paid when he learned of them, so there was no duty to report (see May 29, 2011).

Jack Warner, vice president of FIFA and president of the CONCACAF grouping of North and Central American football associations, promises a “football tsunami” of dirty laundry if an ethics committee hearing goes against him. Warner is facing bribery charges due to an alleged attempt by FIFA presidential candidate Mohamed bin Hammam to bribe Carribean voters (see May 25, 2011). “I tell you something, in the next couple days you will see a football tsunami that will hit FIFA and the world that will shock you,” says Warner in Port of Spain. “The time has come when I must stop playing dead so you’ll see it, it’s coming, trust me. You’ll see it by now and Monday. I have been here for 29 consecutive years and if the worst happens, the worst happens.” Warner also insists he is not guilty of a “single iota of wrongdoing,” says he he could walk away from FIFA, as “you must never get too attached to anything,” claims, “I am wielding more power in FIFA now than sometimes even the president, I must be the envy of others,” and adds that he voted for the US to hold the 2022 World Cup finals (see Around 2:30 p.m. December 2, 2010). (Daily Telegraph 5/28/2011)

At a hearing on bribery allegations, FIFA’s ethics committee clears the organization’s president Sepp Blatter of wrongdoing, but provisionally suspends his presidential rival Mohammed bin Hammam, FIFA vice president Jack Warner, and two other officials. The allegations stemmed from a meeting in early May, when bin Hammam, aided by Warner and the other two officials, Debbie Minguell and Jason Sylvester of the Caribbean Football Union, paid voters to support bin Hammam (see May 10, 2011). The allegations were broken by FIFA executive committee member Chuck Blazer, leading to ethics referrals for the five officials (see May 25, 2011 and May 26, 2011). According to Namibian judge Petrus Damaseb, who chairs the committee meeting, Blatter is not guitly of the charges against him—that he knew of the bribes, but failed to report them—because he only knew of them in advance. Damaseb says, “The committee took the view that the obligation to report did not arise because at that stage no wrongdoing had occurred.” (ESPN 5/29/2011) The relevant section of FIFA’s ethics code states, “Officials shall report any evidence of violations of conduct to the FIFA secretary general, who shall report it to the competent body.” (FIFA 2009 pdf file) According to the ethics committee, there is therefore no duty under the code to report forthcoming violations of ethics. However, the committee decides that the other four officials have a case to answer and are provisionally suspended from all football-related activity. (ESPN 5/29/2011)

The Qatari Investment Authority buys a 70 percent stake in the leading French club Paris St. Germain. The club’s former controlling investor, the US Colony Capital group, retains an interest of nearly 30 percent. The takeover comes after PSG finished fourth in Ligue 1—their highest placing since 2004—and reached the French cup final. (ESPN 5/31/2011) The investment will be operated by Qatar Sports Investments, an arm of the new owners. (Conn 11/22/2011)


Creative Commons License Except where otherwise noted, the textual content of each timeline is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike