Matildas coach sacking: Probe asked to examine grounds for Alen Stajcic dismissal

Two controversial reports - one in which 80 pages remain ‘sealed’ - are now central to the latest investigation into the sacking of our most successful Matildas coach.

Sports Integrity Australia will be asked to review the findings of the two key reports used to justify the sacking of then Matildas coach Alen Stajcic.

Stajcic, dumped five months before the 2019 World Cup, is one of the Matildas most successful coaches taking them to their highest-ever FIFA ranking of 4.

But no plausible explanation has ever been given on why the Matildas most successful coach was controversially sent packing.

The first report by OurWatch, originally commissioned to investigate culture across the entire organisation, never recommended action against Stajcic.

And only 10 pages of what is believed to be a 90+ page report were ever released.

Neither Stajcic himself, nor his lawyer, ever received the full report.

Watch the world’s best footballers every week with beIN SPORTS on Kayo. LIVE coverage from LaLiga, Bundesliga, Ligue 1, Serie A, Carabao Cup, EFL & SPFL. New to Kayo? Start Your Free Trial >

Former Matildas coach Alen Stajcic after being sacked by the FFA in 2019. Picture: Brett Costello

The rigour around the second report by Professional Footballers Australia on the Matildas Wellbeing from November 2018 has also been questioned.

Of concern is why the survey remained open and unlocked and therefore vulnerable to manipulation.

Originally the sample was intended to include Matildas players who played in two or more camps over the preceding 12 months.

Based on this, 27 players would have been eligible however, 32 responses were received fuelling further questions.

News Corp understands members within Football Australia’s organisation, current and past, will ask SIA to review the procedural process from the board still chaired by Chris Nikou.

They asking for the full OurWatch report to be released.

The terms of reference of the initial review into Stajcic’s sacking prevented the review panel from anyone speaking to the FFA and it has recently been revealed, players were also not questioned.

Stajcic addresses the media in Sydney after his sacking. Picture: Brett Costello

Under Nikou’s stewardship, football’s governing body has faced a public relations firestorm including;

* The sacking of Stajcic;

* The U23 men Olyroos Tinder incident in Cambodia that saw four players suspended for unprofessional conduct;

* And most recently Lisa De Vanna’s shocking claims revealed by News Corp that minors were the target of groomers.

Nikou isn’t accused of any personal wrongdoing in relation to the claims.

It is also understood that SIA will be asked to review the competency and transparency of current board processes.

Then FFA chief executive David Gallop pointed to the results of a survey conducted by the players’ union (PFA) and OurWatch report for Stajcic’s sacking.

He said he also recommended to dump Stajcic after extensive interviews with players and staff.

Sports Integrity Australia have been asked to review the findings of two key reports used to justify the sacking of then Matildas coach Stajcic.

At the time Gallop said: “These matters are accumulative and there was a real view that things had deteriorated over a period of time … and that’s why the decision was taken.”

However, it is understood a number of the current Matildas still seek advice from Stajcic who last month was appointed to coach the Philippines women’s team in the 2022 Asian Cup.

Under SIA’s reporting model, all complaints are heard, investigated and acted on confidentially and independently from the sports the athletes are involved in.

The requests to review the findings of OurWatch report and the Matildas Wellbeing Audit was prompted by SIA’s commitment to manage complaints about bullying and harassment.

Those lodging the report are not disputing or asking to review the employment agreement that existed between Stajcic and FFA.

CEO of Sports Integrity Australia David Sharpe has said: “It’s critical that there’s independence so it can’t be seen that there’s any conflict of interest or any undue influence or any brand protection.”

Sharpe understands the hesitancy of witnesses to speak out after seeing other whistleblowers attacked on social media — and in some cases mainstream media — for going public when their complaints were ignored by sporting bodies.

But he has urged anyone with information to come forward.

All complaints are heard confidentially by SIA.

“SIA will assess all submissions to determine whether they are in scope of this complaints handling process,” a spokesman said.

For the Football Australia probe, SIA has established a three-month window for complaints to be heard.

A spokesman added: “The SIA process will manage all complaints which fall within the categories of abuse, bullying, child abuse, child grooming, endangering the safety of a child, harassment, sexual misconduct, unlawful discrimination, victimisation and vilification.

“Decisions regarding selection issues and employment disputes are a matter for FA.”

Originally published as Matildas coach sacking: Probe asked to examine grounds for Alen Stajcic dismissal