FIFA Corruption Scandal: Sepp Blatter Reveals He Had Gentleman’s Agreement with Michel Platini

Sepp Blatter has revealed he had a “gentleman’s agreement” with Michel Platini over the 2 million euro payment he made to the UEFA president in 2011.

The 79-year-old FIFA president faces a criminal investigation over the payment, made nine years after Michel Platini, 60, carried out consultation work for the Swiss.

Sepp Blatter and Michel Platini deny any wrongdoing.

“It was a contract I had with Michel Platini, a gentleman’s agreement that was followed through on,” Sepp Blatter told Swiss broadcaster RROTV.

Soccer’s world governing body FIFA has imposed a 90-day suspension on Sepp Blatter and Michel Platini while corruption claims concerning the payment are investigated.

Former France international captain and coach Michel Platini says the money was an unpaid additional salary due from the time he served as Sepp Blatter’s advisor between 1998 and 2002.

Following a UEFA meeting on October 15, the Football Association (FA) suspended its support for Michel Platini’s bid to become FIFA president “until the legal process has been concluded and the position is clear”.

UEFA issued a statement saying Micehl Platini should be given the opportunity “to clear his name” and urged the FIFA ethics committee to conclude its investigation by mid-November.

The FIFA presidential election is scheduled to take place on February 26, 2016.

Meanwhile, FIFA says it will investigate “very serious allegations” that a 6.7 million euro payment was made to it by Germany’s 2006 World Cup organizing committee.

The bid, led by former World Cup-winning captain and coach Franz Beckenbauer, edged out favorites South Africa in the July 2000 vote to win the hosting rights for the 2006 tournament.

FIFA said the allegations would be reviewed “as part of the independent internal investigation currently being conducted by FIFA under the direction of its legal director with the assistance of outside counsel”.

Germany’s Football Association is also investigating the payment, saying it had found no indication of wrongdoing in the overall bid process but that the payment “may potentially not have been used for the intended purpose”.