SA press takes issue over FIFA's bullying

In a written submission to FIFA and the local organising committee, Avusa Media Limited, Independent Newspapers and Media 24 have said restrictions outlined by FIFA "unjustifiably restrict the media's ability to report critically on the FIFA World Cup and any related or ancillary topics".

The submissions, handed to the soccer body on Wednesday by Johannesburg law firm Webber Wentzel on behalf of all three newspaper houses, state that FIFA "holds a monopoly over all matters pertaining to the 2010 FIFA World Cup".

It further argues that because of this monopoly, the media "effectively has no choice but to comply with FIFA's requirements concerning accreditation if they wish to attend and report on games, and if they wish to report on the event".

Legal counsel for the three groups submitted that "the unilateral imposition by FIFA of terms and conditions is subject to the Constitution".

Several of FIFA's provisions have been challenged on the basis that they "unjustifiably" restrict all types of reporting by directly interfering "with the right of the media to publish, without interference, commentary or opinion on matters related to the FIFA World Cup and that they are plainly unconstitutional".

FIFA's terms and conditions state that news organisations may not "harm the reputation of the FIFA World Cup" or "engage in conduct which expresses ... charity or ideological concern [sic] related views, which could impair the enjoyment of the FIFA World Cup by other spectators, or detract from the sporting focus of the FIFA World Cup".

The newspaper groups submitted that under South African law, "a prior restraint on publication" is in itself unlawful and that "publication is lawful or justifiable on the basis that it is true and in the public interest, protected by fair comment or is reasonable."

Furthermore, FIFA's accreditation terms are "procedurally unfair, unlawful and unconstitutional."

Organising committee spokesman Richard Mkhondo confirmed he received the submission, and that "we are still looking at it".

Source: The Times