World footballers’ association concerned about 10-year-ban

The international players' union, FIFPro, has expressed concern over UEFA's decision to ban Valletta FC and Malta midfielder Kevin Sammut for 10 years for match-fixing, a punishment that has effectively ended the 31-year-old's career.

Sammut has protested his innocence after being found guilty of fixing a 2008 European Championship qualifier against Norway, who won the game 4-0 with three goals in the last 18 minutes. He had in fact been substituted at half-time, and was one of three players cited by UEFA's Control and Disciplinary Body but the only one sanctioned.

FIFPro said it was extremely concerned about the legal proceedings and the disproportionate sanction.

The suspension of Sammut follows accusations made by Mario Cvrtak, a former member of a gambling syndicate who was sentenced in 2011 by the court of Bochum (Germany) for manipulating matches. According to Cvrtak, the Maltese midfielder Kevin Sammut was the hub in the manipulation of this match, which was won by Norway with 4-0.

"FIFPro is troubled about the legal proceedings. The worldwide trade union for professional footballs wonders whether UEFA is sufficiently equipped for such a trial. In its legal procedure, UEFA has fewer possibilities than the normal authorities, certainly for summoning and hearing witnesses and for reviewing the evidence. This means the legal procedure can be less than meticulous," FIFPro said in a statement.

FIFPro also questioned the proportionality of the sanction for Kevin Sammut.

"A ten-year suspension is an extremely severe sentence. The average duration of a professional footballer's career is ten years. For this 31-year-old player, this suspension would normally mean the end of his career as professional player."

The footballers' organisation said that a footballer does not often take the initiative for match-fixing, and that players tend to be subjected to physical or mental pressure by criminals. "Sammut was accused by a third party outside football as the hub in a match-fixing: Mario Cvrtak. To what extent can this accuser-with-a-criminal-background be trusted? Furthermore, the question is justified as to whether the sentence imposed on Kevin Summit is in proportion to that imposed on the person who is said to have approached him to manipulate the match."

FIFPro said it was improbable that Sammut, if guilty, was the only person involved in this affair. "It frequently emerges that more people, both within football and outside it, are involved in match-fixing. A case such as this is an enormous threat to the welfare of a player. The footballer must foot the costs of his defence himself, with the consequence that a trial can bring a player to the edge of ruin, regardless of whether a player is found guilty or acquitted. That is also cause for concern."

FIFPro said it was against any form of manipulation in professional football, but said it wanted a fair legal procedure with proportionate sanctions for everybody concerned.