A front-page story entitled SASAC Blocks Chinese Soccer published in the Jan. 7 issue of Soccer has meant trouble for this Guangzhou-based newspaper for it has found itself on the receiving end of a hard tackle from the Chinese Football Association (CFA).

 

The Soccer which began publication in Jan. 1980 is the oldest and most popular soccer newspaper in China. Citing the examples of the Yunnan Hongta and Shanghai Zhongyuan Group, which have recently withdrawn from investment in professional soccer, the controversial article reported that the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC) had graded the Chinese soccer industry as a bad asset and advised state-owned enterprises to steer clear of it.

 

The SASAC refuted the story and denounced the report as "irresponsible." Angered by the article which had been labeled as a "gross misrepresentation of the truth" the Chinese Football Association reacted strongly on Jan. 9 with two censures on the newspaper:

 

1. the CFA urged the Soccer newspaper to offer a formal apology and clarify the facts to redress the harmful effects of the "untrue story";

 

2. the CFA rescinded Soccer's news-gathering rights at all sports events and activities hosted by the CFA and reserved its right to take the matter further.

 

Meanwhile, the CFA has said it hopes that "other media and reporters will be realistic, truthful, objective and fair in their reporting in a spirit of responsibility towards Chinese soccer and avoid similar incidents happening again."

 

The All-China Sports Federation, a semi-official national sports' organization, hailed the CFA's move in a commentary entitled Sticking to a Right Orientation in the Media posted Jan. 12 on its web site.

 

CFA press official Dong Hua then categorically denied that the newspaper had been banned from covering all soccer matches. "Of course Soccer is still able to report World Cup, European Cup and other games not connected with the CFA. Soccer reporters are also not banned from watching matches sponsored by the CFA. However, the CFA won't agree to interviews with the paper," Dong said, "What's more, it's out of the question for the CFA to annul its censures as Soccer has requested."

 

In the light of the CFA's ban, all three national teams; the National Men's Soccer Team which is in training in Hainan, the Chinese Olympics Team training in Spain and the National Women's Soccer Team training in Guangdong are now not supposed to give interviews to the newspaper.

 

The Soccer had its own say in the dispute, which has already attracted attention nationwide. Xie Yi, editor-in-chief of the paper, has denied that the Jan. 7 report was without foundation. "The story was based on investigative reporting and interviews with experts in the field. Furthermore what the article did was to discuss issues that revolved around Chinese soccer. We did not rush into any conclusions," Xie said.

 

In terms of the CFA censures Xie said, "This is an unlawful act which infringes our rights. We ask the CFA to immediately annul its flawed decision and apologize. Right now we will be keeping in touch with the CFA but we may start legal proceedings at any time."

 

On Jan. 10 Xie provided a detailed statement of his position as follows:

 

1. Soccer reporting is not irresponsible and the CFA has no right to brand the report as "irresponsible." We obtained our information on the situation from a reliable source. Our report touches on the problems of Chinese soccer and does not actually say specifically that the Chinese soccer industry as a bad asset. I'm amazed that the CFA, as a non-governmental organization, could seek to impose such a punishment.

 

2. During a crucial period of reform for China's soccer systems we have been reporting on and discussing such questions as "whether or not Chinese soccer is a bad asset" and "whether or not state-owned enterprises should steer clear of the soccer industry." We are motivated by a desire to promote the healthy development of Chinese soccer. The Chinese Constitution confers powers and freedoms on the media and the public to discuss these issues. The CFA would also be free to choose to consider Chinese soccer as representing a high quality asset operating in an orderly manner in a healthy atmosphere.

 

3. The censures that the CFA has imposed on Soccer violate the Constitution and the law. They restrict the freedom of the press. The CFA may have the right to choose not to be interviewed by Soccer itself but it has no right to deprive reporters of their news-gathering rights. If the CFA refuses to withdraw its decision, Soccer will sue.

 

4. Chinese soccer and the Chinese soccer industry do not just belong to the CFA. They belong to the soccer fans and to society as a whole. Soccer will continue to report on what is happening in both Chinese and world soccer matches in order to serve the needs of the fans who really care about the development of Chinese soccer.

 

On Jan. 12 the newspaper carried the following statement by its lawyers asking the CFA to apologize:

 

1. The article SASAC Blocks Chinese Soccer is a special news investigation by Soccer reporters on the Chinese soccer industry. It forecasts policy trends in the Chinese soccer industry based on comprehensive investigation and research. It analyzes not only the issue that some state-owned enterprises have recently been steering clear of the soccer industry but also the new problems associated with other types of enterprises becoming involved in the soccer industry. The discussion is constructive and responsible from the point of view of society. It is not harmful; rather it is helpful to the healthy development of Chinese soccer. The article did not set out to denigrate either Chinese soccer or the CFA.

 

2. Soccer is the country's longest established soccer industry newspaper. It enjoys a good reputation and wide influence in society. The newspaper cares about the healthy development of Chinese soccer. It pays close attention to both the fundamental issues and to the image which is presented when state-owned enterprises either invest in or withdraw from involvement in soccer. It welcomes soccer industry investors, soccer fans and institutions to join in the discussion. We are willing to organize events to promote debate on the issues in cooperation with the CFA and to publish all the views and opinions contributed by the CFA in a timely manner. Soccer believes that such discussion would contribute to the healthy development of Chinese soccer.

 

3. Soccer is a professional sports newspaper operating in accordance with the Regulations on Publishing Management of the People's Republic of China and holding the necessary permissions required by law. It does not lie within the authority of an organization, which is not a press publication management department, to cancel the paper's news-gathering rights.

 

4. Soccer reporters hold Reporter Permits issued by the State Press and Publication Administration and so are legally accredited to engage in news-gathering. Events undertaken or sponsored by the CFA are public sports activities and Soccer and its reporters have legal rights to engage in the conduct of interviews. The CFA has a legal responsibility to allow itself to be interviewed and to facilitate the work of the various representatives of the media in an even handed manner. If the CFA were to discriminate against any particular media organization its actions would contravene the law and it will have left itself open to civil action for recovery of losses incurred. The CFA's own regulations stipulate that the legal basis of the establishment of the CFA is the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China. The CFA is not free to operate outside the law or impunity to cause other organizations to suffer losses.

 

5. The "decision" made by the CFA on Jan. 9 concerning the Soccer newspaper has seriously violated the paper's legal rights and has led to actual losses being incurred by Soccer. The "decision" not only deprives Soccer of its legal rights but also defames the paper's good reputation in the soccer industry. Soccer has urged the CFA to withdraw its "decision" and to publish an apology to the newspaper. Soccer reserves its right to pursue the matter further.

 

6. Chinese soccer is currently going through a crucial stage in which many problems are exerting a considerable influence on the way the game will be operated in the future. For example, many large state-owned enterprises are steering clear of Chinese soccer, shareholders involved in the forthcoming Chinese premier league may be closely interrelated and the prestige of Chinese league football is not what it should be. Such difficulties merit attention and discussion by the media and the CFA which has a role to bring forward proposals to address the problems and to engage in an exchange of ideas. We deeply regret the CFA's attitude and its method of settling problems as adopted on January 9, 2004.

 

7. The Soccer newspaper and industry insiders share a common set of goals. That is to work together to develop Chinese league soccer and the Chinese soccer industry and to meet the needs of the soccer fans. As for the aforementioned issues, the Soccer newspaper is willing to exchange ideas with the CFA. Even though a divergence of views does exist, the CFA cannot block the newspaper in its timely and in-depth reporting of Chinese soccer.

 

According to an on-online survey, some 80 percent of those responding said that the CFA should not impose a ban on the paper's news-gathering rights.

 

"In the first place it is self-evident that the CFA has no right to forbid a newspaper to gather news," said a lawyer on condition of anonymity. "However it is clear that the statement issued by the CFA has been carefully worded. For instance it's well within the CFA's authority not to issue reporting permits and certificates even if it could not go as far as declining to respond properly in the case of press interviews."

 

According to Yu Guoming, head of the Public Opinion Research Center at Renmin University of China, in keeping with usual practice, whether or not a media report is accurate is supposed to be judged by a third party. The CFA as a semi-official organization should in any case adopt an open attitude towards scrutiny by public opinion.

 

"It is impossible for the mass media to be totally correct at all times," said Yu citing the example of a local statute aimed at strengthening supervision by public opinion. This is a regulation recently implemented in south China's Shenzhen City. It allows for the media not to be held responsible when they report unproven suspicions about government officials as long as the views are reasonable and there are obvious indications to support the suspicions.

 

"And what's more, there are no legal grounds for the CFA, a corporate body, to punish the media," pointed out Zhou Qiang, a lawyer from the Beijing-based Zhongye Law Firm and deputy director of the Civil Law Commission of the Beijing Lawyers' Association. "The CFA has overstepped its authority in issuing a public statement to cancel Soccer's news-gathering rights," Zhou said.

 

(China.org.cn by Li Jingrong and Shao Da, January 21, 2004)