Football
Fifagate’s Final Deal Makes Corruption a Purchasable Offense -By Fransiscus Nanga Roka
Fifagate, Global football is not for sale, they said. It sends a more sinister signal: corruption could always be prosecuted until the cretin can pay to cut a deal.
Two key players in the Fifagate corruption scandal will apparently dodge both jail-time and a criminal conviction after eluding an American court for over a decade. Now the price tag: US$50 million and one year of lawful conduct.
Argentine sports marketing moguls Hugo Jinkis, 81, and son Mariano, 51, entered one-year deferred prosecution agreements in Brooklyn federal court on August 27, 2026. Full Play Group owners `paid tens of millions of dollars in commercial bribes to soccer officials for the rights to lucrative broadcasting and marketing contracts’, according to an agreed statement of facts. Still, they never formally pleaded guilty.
That’s the this-whose form, and that is the when-it-happens. The how and the when point to something uglier: a justice system that can chase corruption across continents but which, if rich defendants finally arrive in the same courtroom, seems reluctant to demand a conviction.
From 2010 to 2015, the Jinkises allegedly used Full Play to bribe officials in return for help winning rights tied to World Cup qualifiers, Copa América and other lucrative tournaments according to court filings. It supposedly turned FIFA and its continental governing bodies into nothing more than genteel protection rackets, not merely stealing cash but turning decisions on the future of the world’s biggest sport into a private auction process.
Father and son, indicted in 2015, turned themselves into police in Argentina; a judge there prevented their extradition. They stayed out of reach of US authorities for years, even turning up in New York on their own dime in May 2026 at the behest of negotiators. The assets were frozen under the agreements, and $50 million will be owned by the U.S. The two men will have the chance to avoid prosecution on those fraud charges entirely by September 2027, provided neither commit another crime.
This is not a plea guilty, conviction or verdict by any court. You are not charged, but instead you are defending off prosecution through compliance with negotiated terms in a DPA. This difference, so central to the ethical debate, comes down to the common violations person does not get an opportunity to convert admission of guilt into compliance in good faith for limited time.
Prosecutors can even characterize the deals as a way of getting some restitution — receiving back most all assets lost in exchange for Roberts not objecting to them seeking court judgment from him to recoup money, rather than facing the uncertainties of trial and several evidentiary obstacles arising with Hugo Jinkis due to his advanced age and also incredible delay. Those considerations are legitimate. They are not sufficient.
Despite the accused persons’ age, the alleged bribery occurred. The bulk of that delay resulted from our decision to remain out of US jurisdiction so it should not be an excuse. And seizing frozen funds is not punishment: seizure gets rid of dirty money; criminal sentences deliver moral condemnation and personal accountability.
This is particularly unsettling in light of the fact that DPAs have historically dealt with issues concerning corporate liability. Prior to the hearing, it had been reported that no-one in the 10-year-long prosecution of Fifagate had gone through such an ordeal. For the rich and powerful, that privilege is a potential ticket to a two-tier anti-corruption regime: prison for bribed officials; negotiated non conviction for tycoons who finance them, Strategic reform is urgent. The Justice Department ought to release a proportionality analysis laying out why prosecution was postponed. Instead of merely registering DPAs, courts must independently review individual agreements. Admissions, restitution, cooperation identifying each bribery recipient, and compliance monitoring with a presumption against DPAs for fugitives who prolonged proceedings should now be in play. Fifa ought to permanently ban companies and executives that have been implicated from commercial football.
Fifagate, Global football is not for sale, they said. It sends a more sinister signal: corruption could always be prosecuted until the cretin can pay to cut a deal.
Fransiscus Nanga Roka
Faculty of Law University 17 August 1945 Surabaya and Managing Partner Law Firm Victorious Indonesia
