“Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue.” The aforementioned quote was notably articulated by revered French writer, François de La Rochefoucauld, some 300 years ago.
Like fine wine, the expression has aged with time and has become part of our existential fabric, and like a contemporary currency which is traded every so often, it has become an immutable fact of our present-day reality.
In Guyana, it’s a ‘national pastime’ and in the local realm of sport, it has found a worthy home given its esteemed tenants, occupants, and landlords. To believe or think otherwise, is to live the actuality of an outlier.
The Guyana Football Federation (GFF), an august institution revered for the efforts of its ‘storied’ predecessors, has in some instances, ventured down this pathway. In keeping with its constitutionally mandated rules and protocols, the local authority of association football has officially announced to its membership, the date of December 18 for its 2021 Congress.
However, several pertinent questions have immediately emerged following an analysis of the correspondence, given the myriad of undertones contained in the aforementioned missive.
Why was the decision taken to stage this important forum via video conference when the federation in partnership with the Kashif and Shanghai organisation, is hosting three year-end tournaments?
Is the GFF implying that its members of Congress, the highest decision-making body associated with the discipline, are not inoculated, yet it requires and demands vaccination of players, officials and the general public to participate in its year-end triumvirates?
An excerpt from the official GFF correspondence sent to its membership on the Congress, dated November 6 and signed by General Secretary Ian Alves stated, “Due to the ongoing global pandemic and the necessary protocols, the fact that it is not an electoral congress, and the Federation’s continued concern for the health and well-being of its Members, the Executive Committee approved that the 2021 Ordinary Congress of the GFF be held via video conference. Details regarding accessing the Congress will be provided separately.”
Answers are required of this esteemed institution. For an executive who entered the hallowed halls of Section-K Campbellville under the banner of rectitude, and probity, these attributes seem a distant memory.
The other immutable fact is that the current administration with its copious levels of pageantry, staged numerous public relations gatherings for the sport at different locales to present equipment to several members or associates of the Congress. So what is the difference now, what has changed since then?
This is the same federation which has opted to resume ATC training as well as stage a national championship for the same U-13 age group. Similarly, was a mandate of ‘vaccination only’ enforced on ATC training, as well as the players of the tournament?
No gymnastics-inspired level of mathematics is required to decode that the number of players, coaches and officials registered and required for two clubs to conduct one match during the field championship will be practically identical, barring the physical contact, as the numbers of any congress.
The GFF must be made to elucidate the stance off this virtual congress, as it is not rooted in common sense given the backdrop of staging three year-end tournaments for the first time in its history.
An excuse by way of citing financial cost may have gained traction or some form of foothold, but certainly not in 2021, given the GFF’s benevolence, as is explicitly and consistently presented on its official Facebook page.
Moreover, the recommendation that because it is not an electoral Congress it will be held virtually is subliminally suspicious. Could there be an ulterior motive or hidden agenda for this sudden and indifferent posture?
Could there be items of discussion that the GFF principals want to hide from the prying eyes and questionings of a physical congress? Given the possibility of technical glitches and access based on a member’s respective geographical location, participation could be impeded or worse yet undermined. This could be rather advantageous. One can only surmise, at least from a general and probing perspective.
Wanting to pass constitutional amendments readily comes to mind; issues like term limits and or the extension of the life of the executive may be tested at this congress.
No sophistry is required to see that something is amiss as to why the federation would opt to go down this strange route in light of staging three football tournaments. Certainly, the prevailing climate of COVID-19 can’t be the reason since competitions are scheduled to be hosted unless they are also going to be played digitally.
I guess that concern only translates off the field of play, a situation which doesn’t often occur in the physical world of sport. Frankly, it is nothing short of hypocritical. But should we expect any better?
Nathaniel Hawthorne, an American novelist famously said, “No man for any considerable period can wear one face to himself and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which may be the true.”
Similarly, Edmund Burke, Irish statesman and philosopher, said, “Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it costs nothing.”
