Who is telling the truth: PUMA/FECAFOOT or FIFA? Read on

Rogermilla · Post by **Rogermilla** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 7:59 pm

Folks I found this article from BBC's archives titled "Cameroon face Fifa sanctions" and I decided to share it here and lets debate. From the article we can see that PUMA claims they had contacted FIFA and received permission to manufacture the kits. But Fifa deputy general secretary Jerome Champagne claims that PUMA never did so. Now who is speaking the truth here?. Methinks PUMA. I don't think they would have produced these kits had FIFA not given permission here. I think this is a case of ADIDAS VS PUMA, since ADIDAS might have questioned why FIFA approved it. This all dive down to the marketing standpoint of both companies. As such Blatter had to change his mind and sanction the kits.

My knowledge tells me that before a tournament, the organizing committees inspects the kits of all participating countries for approval prior to the start of the tournament. As such, PUMA had presented these kits and CAF approved them. Why all these double standards. This is the same CAF that threatened to sanction DR Congo prior to the start of the last ANC(the inspection process) if they didn't change their kits, as they did not meet the standards required by CAF. Why didn't they do the same when they inspected kits for this years' nations cup?

Are they going to make the same claim like Fifa deputy general secretary Jerome Champagne that PUMA didnot present the kits to them for inspection?

Another factor we need to consider is the bitter rivalry between Hayatou and Blatter, as such I am not surprised that the former wants to transfer his aggression to the later's country. Reading FECAFOOT's statement on BBC, I realized my own namesake Albert Roger Milla claims he had warned FECAFOOT that they would be sanctioned. I never remember reading any statements from our football ambassador who happens to be Blatter's houseboy. Why am I surprised to read such a statement from him just now. Why didn't he come out clear.

As Cameroon's foorball ambassador, I expected him to have acted professionally by letting us know his feelings about these kits long ago. Why has he decided to address the situation now? What good does it help us?

Well folks, I wish FECAFOOT all the best, and pray their appeal is granted. Can you imagine me watching the world cup without my darling Idomitable Lions not representing? This cannot happen, and I hope Blatter does the right thing and reverse these six points sanction. A fine is better, but six points, that is beyond dictatorship in my opinion.
GOD bless Cameroon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is the portion from the article I got from BBC's archive, which showed that PUMA had contacted FIFA, but Fifa deputy general secretary Jerome Champagne claims they were not contacted. So who is speaking the truth?.

It was under the topic

"Cameroon face Fifa sanctions"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/a...ica/3522697.stm

Puma, who are Cameroon's sportswear manufacturers, had claimed that they had received permission from Fifa to produce the kit.

But Fifa deputy general secretary Jerome Champagne, whom Puma claimed had sanctioned the kit, insisted he never did so.

"It is not true that I had given them permission," Champagne told BBC Sport on Saturday.

"Where is the written authorisation proving this?

"As far as we are concerned, the rules on apparel are clear and the decision of the IFAB brings an end to this matter."

theYemster · Post by **theYemster** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:04 pm

If you believe PUMA is telling the truth then let them produce proof of FIFA's approval...unless of course they received the said approval over the phone after verbally describing the outfit to 'FIFA'.

I believe PUMA is using Cameroon as a promotional pawn and rather than learn your lessons Rogermilla you still seem to be hanging unto their every word hook, line and sinker.

Cameroon is not their only clients...how come it is only Cameroon they create all these offending attires for?

Rogermilla · Post by **Rogermilla** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:19 pm

theYemster wrote:If you believe PUMA is telling the truth then let them produce proof of FIFA's approval...unless of course they received the said approval over the phone after verbally describing the outfit to 'FIFA'.

I believe PUMA is using Cameroon as a promotional pawn and rather than learn your lessons Rogermilla you still seem to be hanging unto their every word hook, line and sinker.

Cameroon is not their only clients...how come it is only Cameroon they create all these offending attires for?

Why do you also believe that FIFA is telling the truth. Where is the proof that PUMA didnot acquire permission from them before producing the kits.

PUMA had contacted their other clients about producing similar kits, but they refused. I am not trying to make any excuses for anybody, we deserve to be punished for not obeying the law, but not in this manner. And I question FIFA to show proof that PUMA didnot acquire permission from them.

kaycee2g · Post by **kaycee2g** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:37 pm

Roger as i said before, "The burden of proof rests on the prosecution." Puma are the ones claiming they had such a meeting with FIFA. Therefore provide evidence of such a meeting. FIFA states there was no meeting, so what kind of evidence do u want them to present.

theYemster · Post by **theYemster** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:38 pm

RM, I dunno who is telling the tuth for sure but I am much more inclined to believe FIFA than PUMA and i'll tell you why:

1) It's FIFA's call, if they had given prior consent, they wouldn't go through all this trouble. There is no need for them to lie just to punish Cameroon. PUMA on the other hand has a reason to lie in order to save Cameroon and cover their asses. In FIFA's case lying is opitional and unnecessary while in PUMA's its necessary.

2) FIFA had long since been complaining about Cameroons kits.

3) If PUMA did seek and get FIFA's permission, it should've and would've been in writing or on a document. For them to get FIFA's approval, they would've had to send pictures or actual samples with an official letter to which FIFA would ahave also responded officially. Let PUMA produce this. An organization like PUMA should not and would not continue with a controversial project like this on the strength of a verbal agreement and if they did then with whom...? Let them give a name and position of the individual that they spoke to and who approved it. Just saying FIFA is ambiguous...even an approval letter had to have been signed by someone.

4) The fact that as you claimed other clients (countries/clubs) had rejected the attire probably made them realise Cameroon was their only option to promote it and may have made them just go ahead and produce it. was it before the other clients rejected the sample that they sought FIFA's permission or after?

5) The fact that PUMA didn't initially claim that FIFA approved it and just said they would cover any fine and now that sh1t has hit the fan they now claim they had FIFA's permission...why didn't they divulge this information earlier when they thought the punishment was only a fine (one that they could cover)? The only story I heard before was CAF approved it AND NOT FIFA.

I can go on but these are just reasons I thought of on the fly.

Dammy · Post by **Dammy** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:40 pm

Rogermilla, why should you believe Puma over FIFA. Like I pointed out in a similar thread that Puma went public that they would absorb any FIFA fine. That was careless and reckless and that is why there is an additional punishment of a 6 points deduction. Puma put Cameroon in this problem through the stupidity of your football administrators. It is no use calling Roger Milla a houseboy simply because he has spoken the truth!!

theDunamis · Post by **theDunamis** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:41 pm

RMilla, I think the point is hardly about PUMA contacting FIFA or not. PUMA was not fined or punished by FIFA, Cameroon was. Why? Let's even for a second assume that PUMA contacted FIFA and got approval. The case against Cameroon is that they were subsequently approached by the IFAB during the ANC and told about the inappropriateness of their gear. Cameroon deferred and consented to changing it by the start of the knock out stage. And it was after reneging on that agreement that IFAB forwarded the case to FIFA and which led to this.

I think any arguments by Cameroon shud not be about Puma contacting FIFA but rather, whether it (CAMFOOT) had any sort of agreement with IFAB during the ANC. That seems a more plausible argument. And on whether FIFA did approve earlier and later disapproved, if they did that, I think there is a military maxim that comes to mind "Obey the last command" - more so after (if indeed) you had agreed to it.

All that said and done, I really believe that the punishment by FIFA was indeed quite maximal and was probably a reaction to the daring comment by PUMA that "we will pay whatever fine". Finally, I really think that if ever there was a time Hayatou needed to put his positional location and clout to better use than APOY decisions (

tongue in cheek comment by a shriner, mon ami ), that time is NOW!!

Talk IT · Post by **Talk IT** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:47 pm

Rogermilla wrote,

As such, PUMA had presented these kits and CAF approved them

Have you forgotten that the head of CAF is that Hayatou man that has been running the organisation like his personal property? If cameroun do not qualify for the WC blame mr Hayatou. FIFA wanted cameroun to to fall into line by fining them but since PUMA has said they will pay all the fine it was obvious to FIFA that a mere fine will not send the message hence....

Rogermilla · Post by **Rogermilla** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:48 pm

Dammy wrote:Rogermilla, why should you believe Puma over FIFA. Like I pointed out in a similar thread that Puma went public that they would absorb any FIFA fine. That was careless and reckless and that is why there is an additional punishment of a 6 points deduction. Puma put Cameroon in this problem through the stupidity of your football administrators. It is no use calling Roger Milla a houseboy simply because he has spoken the truth!!

The reason why PUMA said they would pay any fines incurred was the fact that after the warning not to use the kits in the second round, they said it would require at least 60 days to come with new kits fully customised to meet ANC standards, to which FIFA rejected, thus they went ahead and used the kits and said they would pay any financial fines incurred by not obeying the laws.

kaycee2g · Post by **kaycee2g** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:49 pm

Talk it... u are very right.

dicipline has to prevail in this sport.

theDunamis · Post by **theDunamis** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:53 pm

By the way, that statement by PUMA about paying any fines sounds to me like a mea culpa right there.

ofilis · Post by **ofilis** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:53 pm

Rogermilla: It is totally irrelevant whether Puma got initial green light to go ahead with the "swimsuit" design or not. The facts of this case are very clear.

FIFA unequivocally instructed Cameroon not to use the "Swimsuit" kit on two occasions but Cameroon decided to call FIFA's bluff. FIFA, as the soccer governing body has announced its punishment for a flagrant violation of its rules.

Camerron does not deserve any sympathy. Even Roger Miller, probably the best player that ever came out of Cameroon agrees with FIFA's position. Hear him, "We were warned during the 2002 African Cup of Nations, the World Cup and the Confederations Cup," he said.

"I told them to be careful with the choice of jerseys and now this is the consequence."

theYemster · Post by **theYemster** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:54 pm

Rogermilla wrote:
Dammy wrote:Rogermilla, why should you believe Puma over FIFA. Like I pointed out in a similar thread that Puma went public that they would absorb any FIFA fine. That was careless and reckless and that is why there is an additional punishment of a 6 points deduction. Puma put Cameroon in this problem through the stupidity of your football administrators. It is no use calling Roger Milla a houseboy simply because he has spoken the truth!!
The reason why PUMA said they would pay any fines incurred was the fact that after the warning not to use the kits in the second round, they said it would require at least 60 days to come with new kits fully customised to meet ANC standards, to which FIFA rejected, thus they went ahead and used the kits and said they would pay any financial fines incurred by not obeying the laws.

Why didn't PUMA speak out then and say "but hey FIFA you approved this, why have you changed your mind now? " This is one of the main reasons why I don't believe them now.

kaycee2g · Post by **kaycee2g** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:55 pm

FECAFOOT, were stubborn and stupid. Cameroonians must ask thier FA chairman to resign. the man has failed them.

Honestly, just like how the Italan FA did( cant remember the case now), if cameroon appeals, they should make it 9 points instead.

I am so furious at FECAFOOt right now.

PaJimoh · Post by **PaJimoh** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:56 pm

Well, all i can say is, FIFA warned Cameroon when the design became common knowledge. I can only assume that if FIFA had approved, there will be no warning and even if they approved and there was warning, Puma would have come out fighting, brandishing FIFA's endoresement. they got away witht he sleeveless shirt and went even further this time. FIFA must have been forced to aft knowing another attemt by Puma to revolutionaise football kit might lead to something else entirely.

Rogermilla · Post by **Rogermilla** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:57 pm

theYemster wrote:RM, I dunno who is telling the tuth for sure but I am much more inclined to believe FIFA than PUMA and i'll tell you why:

1) It's FIFA's call, if they had given prior consent, they wouldn't go through all this trouble. There is no need for them to lie just to punish Cameroon. PUMA on the other hand has a reason to lie in order to save Cameroon and cover their asses. In FIFA's case lying is opitional and unnecessary while in PUMA's its necessary.

2) FIFA had long since been complaining about Cameroons kits.

3) If PUMA did seek and get FIFA's permission, it should've and would've been in writing or on a document. For them to get FIFA's approval, they would've had to send pictures or actual samples with an official letter to which FIFA would ahave also responded officially. Let PUMA produce this. An organization like PUMA should not and would not continue with a controversial project like this on the strength of a verbal agreement and if they did then with whom...? Let them give a name and position of the individual that they spoke to and who approved it. Just saying FIFA is ambiguous...even an approval letter had to have been signed by someone.

4) The fact that as you claimed other clients (countries/clubs) had rejected the attire probably made them realise Cameroon was their only option to promote it and may have made them just go ahead and produce it. was it before the other clients rejected the sample that they sought FIFA's permission or after?

5) The fact that PUMA didn't initially claim that FIFA approved it and just said they would cover any fine and now that sh1t has hit the fan they now claim they had FIFA's permission...why didn't they divulge this information earlier when they thought the punishment was only a fine (one that they could cover)? The only story I heard before was CAF approved it AND NOT FIFA.

I can go on but these are just reasons I thought of on the fly.

The Yemester I understand where you are coming from. The reason I said I side with PUMA is the fact that they could not have been crazy to manufacture these kits without having acquired approval from FIFA, knowing what happened to Cameroon in Jap/Kor 02, when FIFA had to ban the kits prior to the world cup, and they had to come out with new ones 2 months before the start of the competition.

Also it will be nice if PUMA can produce documentation to show that they did acquire permission, which I believe as professionals, they did have them. FIFA can also claim that they were not contacted, afterall they control the world football, and can do whatever they want.

xxmanB2003 · Post by **xxmanB2003** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:00 pm

I read the BBC article you were reffering to at the time it was published. I even wrote an article of my own for my newspaper about Cameroun's body suit and the consequences of their actions. Forget about what Puma is saying, Jerome Champagne said that he never agreed with them to produce the kits. Anyway, on the 22 of January two days b/f the tournament started Sepp Blatter warned FECAFOOT that their body suit kit was contravening FIFA rule on kits which stipulated that a team must wear shirt and short. But it was Hayatou who complicated things by telling BBC sports that the kits were okay with CAF rules only to make about turn during the first phase of the tournament and agreed with FIFA to allow the Lions to wear the kits only during the first round because FECAFOOT told CAF that PUMA told them that it would take them a long time to produce another kit for the Lions. Puma then encouraged them to wear the kit and promised FECAFOOT that if FIFA fine them, they puma would shoulder the financial responsibility. So with the backing of PUMA the Lions decided to disobey FIFA and CAF and wear the kit in the second round. I think that the Lions and PUMA thought that they would only get financial fine, but yesterday's punishment went beyond their calculations. I personally believe that the Lions should be punished for what they did on two separate tournaments about kits. But I think that the deduction of 6 points for WC is too much, it should have been two or three points. I guess the punishment is to send a message to other teams as well. They want FECAFOOT to know how is the boss. They gambled and lost big time. I think that you should be blaming FECAFOOT and Hayatou for this situation that Cameroun found themselves in.

theDunamis · Post by **theDunamis** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:00 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 194656.stm

Wednesday, 28 February, 2001, 15:39 GMT
Cameroon secure Lions' share

The deal is worth about $700,000 a year

Cameroon have signed a big new sponsorship deal with three main international sponsors, that will ensure that the Indomitable Lions' are provided with all the necessary equipment and also given more friendly international games.
The deal worth 500 million FCFA - or 700,000 US dollars - a year, was signed in Yaounde on Tuesday between officials of Cameroon's football governing body, Fecafoot, on the one hand, and officials of France-based Sports Plus, ICM Plus and Germany-based PUMA, on the other.

We have to restore transparency in the daily management of football in Cameroon

Sports Minister Bidoung Mkwatt

Speaking at the contract signing ceremony, the president of Fecafoot, Iya Mohammed said the deal runs for the next three years and the amount could be doubled in the fourth year if the Indomitable Lions continue performing well.
The sports minister Bidoung Mkwatt who attended the signing ceremony said, in an indirect reference to allegations of corruption in sports: "We have to restore transparency in the daily management of football in Cameroon."

Worthy lions

Italy-based Patrick Mboma contributed greatly to Cameroon's victories

The Indomitable Lions are considered excellent sponsorship material because Cameroon are the current Olympic football gold medallists , the African Cup of Nations holders and All Africa Games winners.

The Lions are probably the most well-known African team at the World Cup and the Confederation of African Football, Caf, recently voted Cameroon as African team of the century.

The sportswear company PUMA was maintained from the first contract the Lions signed and will provide all the Lions' equipment.

As a result of this commitment the company is considering opening a branch office in Cameroon.

ICM will be responsible for arranging more friendly matches for the Lions.

Not everybody is however happy with the new contract.

Officials of first and second divisions leagues have complained that it is wrong for the sponsors to take care only of the national team.

Me wonders if not qualifying for the WC due to a certain 6point deduction will be termed by PUMA as non-performance. Then this would really suck!!!

theYemster · Post by **theYemster** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:06 pm

RM, if I see PUMA's documentation of FIFA's approval then I will believe them but without that I don't. They wanted to use Cameroon to revolutionise sportswear and it backfired in their face. They tried to use Cameroon as a pawn to challenge FIFA...that also backfired.

I suggest you learn your lessons and stop beleiving PUMA...besides FIFA is the boss here so irrespective of whether PUMA is telling the truth or not, it's FIFA you should be listening to.

Personally, I don't believe FIFA will carry out the sanction...they are probably just trying to put everyone in their place - FECAFOOT, PUMA, CAF, Hayatou and also send out a strong message. To me the statement saying they'll pay whatever fine FIFA imposes was the insult that ticked FIFA off. It's definitely not political but personal.

Rogermilla · Post by **Rogermilla** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:08 pm

Look you guys don't understand me. I am not in anyway supporting what FECAFOOT did, but we also have to look at the other side, and not only look at it from one side. PUMA claimed they had permission from FIFA to produce the kits. Why would they. After FIFA had warned about not using the kits in the second round, they complained that time was too short to manufacture new kits fully customised to meet ANC standards, which FIFA didnot comply. They said **** it we will pay the fine, and let the players use the kits. This to me is where PUMA carries the blame. They should have taken it upon themselves to contact FIFA and explain their reason as to why they are unable to come out with new kits on time for the second round. Also they should have reminded FIFA about the approval (if any) they got from FIFA regarding the kits.

theYemster · Post by **theYemster** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:27 pm

Rogermilla wrote:Look you guys don't understand me. I am not in anyway supporting what FECAFOOT did, but we also have to look at the other side, and not only look at it from one side. PUMA claimed they had permission from FIFA to produce the kits. Why would they. After FIFA had warned about not using the kits in the second round, they complained that time was too short to manufacture new kits fully customised to meet ANC standards, which FIFA didnot comply. They said **** it we will pay the fine, and let the players use the kits. This to me is where PUMA carries the blame. They should have taken it upon themselves to contact FIFA and explain their reason as to why they are unable to come out with new kits on time for the second round. Also they should have reminded FIFA about the approval (if any) they got from FIFA regarding the kits.

RM, you just don't get it...no offence but you're beginning to sound like a little baby...who the hell is PUMA in this? FECAFOOT should NOT be listening to PUMA BUT FIFA especially after this had happened before at ANC02.

The question now is the severity of the punishment not about excuses for the crime.

Molue Conductor · Post by **Molue Conductor** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:45 pm

RM, if Addidas tells Nigeria that FIFA agreed that we should wear spandex what should Nigeria do?

a) Nod in Agreement

b) Check with FIFA

this in what Yemster is trying to tell you.
my next post follows

Molue Conductor · Post by **Molue Conductor** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:50 pm

this is why i don't beleive PUMA.

1) PUMA haven't provided the documents. ( some time u said fifa should prove that PUMA did not contact them. How do you expect them to do that? if i say i took picture with you yesterday and u say na lie, is it not me that is supposed to bring picture to court?)

2) the Timing. When PUMA found out that Cameroon was not to wear the jersy past the group stages, why didn't they cry Foul then? why now?