Zimpapers Logo

Robson Sharuko Senior Sports Editor
SOMETHING just isn’t adding up when it comes to the crisis which has engulfed domestic football in the wake of the blanket ban imposed on the country’s stadiums from hosting international football matches.

And, it’s becoming quite a circus — one day hopes are raised the Warriors will possibly play their 2021 AFCON qualifier at home, the next day the hopes are dashed.

While there is universal agreement that our stadiums are in poor shape, which has prompted Government intervention to give them a facelift, there is a lot that continues to baffle many as the drama rumbles on.

Amid all this, there is what appears to be a deliberate ploy to keep crucial information, about what really led to this, away from the media, the fans and the players.

Incredibly, more than two weeks since the story broke out, the official correspondence that came from CAF banning our stadiums, hasn’t been provided to the media who have been left to feast on leaks and statements from ZIFA and other sources.

What did the correspondence say, save from just pronouncing that our stadiums had been banned? What made CAF reach that decision? How did they come to make such a decision?

All these are key questions, which the official correspondence would have helped to answer, but — for one reason or another — it has been shielded away from the scrutiny of both the media and the fans.

All we were told is that ZIFA chose not to invite CAF inspectors to have another look at Barbourfields, because nothing had been done since November last year to address some of the concerns raised during that inspection.

Fair and fine!

But questions still need to be raised, and answered, especially with the way the drama has been playing out in recent days.

l Did CAF advise ZIFA in November last year that renovations at Barbourfields had to be completed before the start of the 2021 AFCON qualifiers, or the stadium would not be allowed to host the matches?

l If that’s the case, what did ZIFA do in December, January and February to alert the authorities of the pending disaster in the event nothing was done to renovate Barbourfields, which would see the Warriors being forced to play outside the country?

l Where is the paper trail to show the concerns, if any came from the association to their partners — be it the Sports Commission or the Bulawayo City Council — to raise the red flag?

l It gets murkier when one considers that ZIFA had already announced the match against the Desert Foxes would be played at Barbourfields and, by doing so, doesn’t that confirm the association were not worried about any possible ban of the stadium?

l And, doesn’t that also eliminate the theory that there was need for a fresh inspection from CAF to confirm whether or not Barbourfields could host the match between the Warriors and the Desert Foxes at the end of this month?

l Even the Algerians knew the match would be at Barbourfields, which means CAF advised them the match would be played at that stadium — which explains why they sent a delegation to inspect the ground and hotel facilities in Bulawayo, ahead of the Desert Foxes’ proposed visit there.

l So, if CAF confirmed Barbourfields as the venue of that match, and relayed that information to the Algerians which enabled the North Africans to send a delegation to have a tour of the stadium last month, why was that confirmation provided for a stadium whose suitability was under consideration?

l Didn’t CAF know, when they advised the Algerians of the identity of the venue where the match would be held, that there was a red flag hanging over Barbourfields, in terms of the stadium possibly not being granted the rights to host the match, and — if so — why did they let the North Africans come here?

l At what point did the system collapse and prompted CAF to then write a letter saying Barbourfields had joined the list of our stadiums which were now barred from hosting international matches?

If record African club champions Al Ahly of Egypt played at Barbourfields in a CAF Champions League match in January, what really changed between then and February, to then make the continental football governing body ban the same stadium from hosting the Warriors?

If two groups of Young Mighty Warriors played their AFCON and World Cup qualifiers at Barbourfields in January and February, what then changed within a matter of weeks for CAF — who sanctioned the stadium to host those matches — to then ban the same ground?

The other day the concern was about the poor state of the stadiums — the changing rooms, the parking lots, the media tribunes, the uneven playing surface, the doping rooms, etc, etc.

Are CAF sending a message that a women’s World Cup qualifier can be played in a stadium that is not good enough for a men’s AFCON qualifier?

Now, after the Government shifted into full throttle to address some of the concerns, we hear that the concern is about the logistics of organising the match here, within a two-week period, should Barbourfields pass the test next week.

Isn’t it the same CAF that sanctioned the change of venue of the 2021 AFCON qualifier between Zimbabwe and Botswana, just five months ago, from Barbourfields to the National Sports Stadium and where was this issue of logistics when the change was effected within just 10 days of the match?

“The Zimbabwe Football Association (ZIFA) wishes to advise the public and all stakeholders that the 2021 Africa Cup of Nations qualifier between Zimbabwe and Botswana initially scheduled for Barbourfields Stadium in Bulawayo on November 15 has been moved to the National Sports Stadium in Harare,’’ read a statement from ZIFA.

“The ZIFA Executive Committee commits to host the next international match which is to be played during day light at Barbourfields Stadium and that we remain committed to a rotation system that will allow all fans an opportunity to support their team in flesh and blood.’’

That statement was released on November 5 last year and, 10 days later, the match was played at the National Sports Stadium.

Didn’t ZIFA know, when they released that statement, there was a possibility the next home Warriors match would not be held at Barbourfields?

This, also, eliminates the issue of logistics which CAF are said to be raising now saying, in the event Barbourfields is certified fit to host the match next week, the two weeks between then and the date of the match won’t be enough for the logistics of staging such a game.

Why is another CAF inspector coming this week to have another look at the National Sports Stadium and Barbourfields?

Our sister newspaper, The Sunday mail, reported yesterday that the inspector would be looking at the suitability of the two stadiums to host the 2022 World Cup qualifiers.

Fair and fine!

But, wasn’t this month originally set for these World Cup qualifiers, only for the fixtures to be changed into AFCON qualifiers, when the 2021 Nations Cup finals were brought forward from June to January next year?

That change was only made last month and if this inspector was coming, as scheduled, for the World Cup qualifiers, doesn’t that complicate matters given that his decision would still have left the Warriors with a two-week window to know where they would play their match?

Why, then, would that two-week window be allowed, for a World Cup qualifier, which is even a bigger game, than an AFCON qualifier?

Where is the consistency from CAF given that in April last year, they allowed Al Ahly to move their Champions League semi-final, second leg match against Sundowns from Egyptian Army Stadium in Suez to the Borg El Arab Stadium in Alexandria, 350km from the capital Cairo, within just days before the match.

“CAF regulations state clearly that the venue and date of any continental match is set 10 days before the kick off day and cannot be changed thereafter, the rules also state that the opposing team should also be notified at least 10 days before the match,’’ the South African media protested.

“After this notification, neither the kick-off time, the day of the match nor the match venue can be changed except if there is an agreement communicated to CAF between the two teams.

“But Sundowns were never informed of or agreed to the venue switch. They left for Cairo yesterday under the impression that the match would be played at the original venue.

They even made hotel bookings in Cairo and now they have to make alternative arrangements and this will affect their preparations for the match.’’

In October last year, CAF changed the dates for two of South Africa’s qualifying games for the 2021 AFCON matches within just a month before the matches were played.