[사건의내막 / 문홍철 기자] = 문화체육관광부는 대한축구협회가 국가대표팀 감독 선임과정에서 규정과 절차를 무시한 부적정한 감독 선임 문제가 확인됐다고 2일 밝혔다.
문체부는 공직유관단체인 대한축구협회의 국가대표팀 감독 선임과정에 대한 특정감사를 실시하고, 이날 그 결과를 발표했다.
문체부는 축구협회에 대한 감독부처로 국가대표팀 감독 선임과정 불공정 논란과 관련해 그동안 제기된 의혹을 해소하고 문제점을 개선하기 위해 지난 7월 29일부터 ▲클린스만, 홍명보 국가대표팀 감독 선임과정 ▲비리 축구인 기습 사면 및 철회 ▲천안 축구종합센터 건립 관련 보조금 집행 및 차입금 실행 ▲지도자 자격관리 ▲기타 운영 관련 사항 등에 대한 감사를 해왔다.
최종 감사 결과는 이달 말에 공개할 예정이지만, 국가대표팀 감독 선임과정에 대한 감사는 지난달 24일 국회에서 현안 질의를 진행할 정도로 관심이 큰 사안인 만큼 이번에 중간 감사 결과를 발표했다.
이번에 발표하는 감사 결과에 따른 문책·시정·주의·개선요구, 권고·통보 등 처분 요구는 개별적으로 처리하지는 않으며, 내달 말에 나올 최종 감사 결과를 반영해 종합적으로 처분 수위를 결정한 뒤 축구협회에 대한 감사 결과 처분 요구를 할 예정이다.
그동안 축구협회는 국가대표팀 감독 선임과정에서 관련 규정을 모두 준수했다고 설명했으나, 특정감사 결과 절차를 무시한 부적정한 감독 선임 문제를 확인했다.
먼저 축구협회는 클린스만 감독 선임 땐 전력강화위원회를 무력화해 최종 감독 후보자 2명에 대한 2차(최종) 면접을 전력강화위원장이 아닌 회장이 직접 진행하고 이사회 선임 절차도 누락했다.
축구국가대표팀 운영규정 제12조에 따르면, 축구 국가대표팀 감독은 국가대표전력강화위원회의 추천으로 이사회가 선임하도곡 규정하고 있다.
그런데 축구협회와 당시 국가대표전력강화위원회 위원장은 지난해 1월 전력강화위원회가 구성되기도 전에 감독 후보자 명단을 작성하고 에이전트를 선임해 후보자 20여 명에 대한 접촉을 진행하는 등 처음부터 전력강화위원들을 배제한 채 선임 절차를 추진했다.
전력강화위원회 위원들(6명)은 첫 번째 전력강화위원회 회의에서 위원장에게 권한을 위임해 주도록 축구협회로부터 요청받았다.
아울러 감독 후보자에 대한 면접과정을 살펴보면 1차 면접은 전력강화위원장이, 2차 면접은 회장이 진행했고 전력강화위원회 위원들은 축구협회와 클린스만 감독과의 계약을 체결한 이후 두 번째 전력강화위원회 회의에서 그 결과를 통보받은 것으로 확인했다.
이 과정에서 축구협회는 이사회 선임 절차도 거치지 않은 것으로 나타났다.
또, 축구협회는 홍명보 감독 선임 때 규정상 권한이 없는 기술총괄이사가 최종 감독 후보자를 추천했고 홍명보 감독 면접 과정도 불투명하고 불공정해 감독 내정·발표한 뒤 이사회 선임 절차는 형식적이었던 것으로 확인됐다.
이○○ 기술총괄이사는 전력강화위원회의 구성원이 아닌 축구협회 기술본부를 총괄하는 기술총괄이사(Technical Director/TD)로 감독 추천 권한이 없음에도 회장과 상근부회장으로부터 감독 선임 후속 절차 진행을 위임받았다는 이유로 감독 후보자 3인을 대면 면접한 뒤 추천 우선순위를 1순위 홍명보, 2순위 A, 3순위 B로 결정해 보고했다.
하지만 지난 7월 5일에 있었던 기술총괄이사와 홍명보 감독 후보자의 대면 면접 과정은 ▲사전 인터뷰 질문지도 없었고 ▲참관인 없이 기술총괄이사 단독으로 ▲4~5시간 장시간 기다리다 늦은 밤 자택 근처에서 ▲면접 진행 중 감독직을 제안, 요청하는 등 다른 감독 후보자의 대면 면접 상황과는 달랐다.
또한 당시 정○○ 전력강화위원장이 사임 의사를 표명하기 전인 6월 27일 감독 후보자 3명에 대한 추천 우선순위를 1순위 홍명보, 2순위 B, 3순위 A로 정해 회장에게 보고했는데, 그 당시 정 위원장은 홍명보 감독과는 어떠한 면접도 진행하지 않은 채 1순위로 추천했고 나머지 감독 후보자 2명과는 비대면 면접을 진행했다.
7월 6일 오전 축구협회는 홍명보 감독이 국가대표팀 감독직 수락 의사를 밝히자 6~7일 축구협회 행정지원팀에서 연봉 등 계약 조건 협상 및 계약서를 작성했다. 8일 기술총괄이사가 기자회견을 통해 홍명보 감독 내정 사실을 발표하고 10일~12일 이사회 서면결의를 거쳐 홍명보 감독을 정식 선임했으며 15일 계약을 체결했다.
이 과정에서 이사회 이사 중 일부는 ‘이사회 서면결의가 단순 요식행위에 가부 판정으로 의견을 낸다는 것에 유감’이라는 의견을 냈고 ‘정식 이사회 회부 요청’도 있었으나, 의결정족수(재적 이사 26명 중 23명 참가, 23명 참가 중 21명 찬성, 1명 반대, 1명 정식 이사회 회부 요청)에 따라 홍명보 감독 선임 안건을 최종 의결했다.
아울러, 축구협회는 논란이 일자 허위 보도설명자료 배포하고 내용이 거짓임이 드러나자 말을 바꿨다.
축구협회는 홍명보 국가대표팀 감독 선임과정의 절차적 문제에 대한 논란이 일자 7월 22일 보도설명자료 등을 통해 기술총괄이사는 6월 30일에 진행했던 전력강화위원회 온라인 임시회의에서 참석한 위원 5명으로부터 ‘감독 후보자 3명 면담→협상→감독 내정 후 이사회 추천’의 후속 절차 진행에 대한 동의를 받고 홍명보 감독을 추천한 것이라고 설명했다.
그런데 감사 과정에서 관련 영상회의록과 관련자 진술 등을 통해 기술총괄이사가 6월 30일 전력강화위원회 위원들로부터 감독 추천 최종 권한을 위임받은 것이 아니라는 것이 밝혀졌다.
이에 축구협회는 9월 29일 질문서에 대한 답변서를 통해 6월 30일 임시회의는 감독 결정 권한을 특정인에게 위임할 수 있는 정식적인 회의로 인정할 아무런 규정상 근거가 없다. 감독 선임에 대한 전력강화위원회의 기능은 이미 제10차 전력강화위원회 회의 때 정○○ 위원장에게 감독 추천 권한을 위임하는 것으로 이미 종료된 것이라며 입장을 번복했다.
축구협회는 기술총괄이사에게 감독 추천 권한이 있었다는 근거로, 제10차 전력강화위원회에서 감독 추천 전권을 위임받은 정 위원장이 6월 28일 사임 의사를 표명하면서 최종 후보자들에 대한 대면 협상 진행 및 이사회 추천 등을 축구협회가 대신해 진행해 달라고 요청했고, 축구협회는 정 위원장의 요청에 따라 해당 역할을 기술총괄이사에게 맡긴 것이라고 주장하고 있다.
하지만 감사 과정에서 정 위원장은 축구협회에 이와 같은 요청을 한 사실이 없었던 것으로 확인했다.
정 위원장이 본인의 권한을 축구협회에 위임하겠다는 의사를 표명했다고 하더라도 전력강화위원회에서 정 위원장에게 축구협회에 재위임할 권한까지 위임한 것이라고 보기는 어려우며, 따라서 기술총괄이사에게 감독 추천 권한이 있었다는 축구협회의 주장은 받아들이기 어렵다.
문체부는 축구 국가대표팀 감독 선임과정의 절차적 문제뿐만 아니라 천안 축구종합센터 건립, 지도자 자격관리 등 다른 주요 사업에 대해서도 특정감사를 진행하고 있는 만큼, 축구협회의 부적정한 행정처리와 불합리한 업무 관행 및 제도개선 사항 등이 없는지 면밀히 살펴보고 그 결과를 종합해 이달 말에 공개할 계획이다.
penfree1@hanmail.net
*아래는 위 기사를'구글 번역'으로 번역한 영문 기사의[전문]입니다. '구글번역'은 이해도 높이기를 위해 노력하고 있습니다. 영문 번역에 오류가 있을 수 있음을 전제로 합니다.<*The following is [the full text] of the English article translated by 'Google Translate'. 'Google Translate' is working hard to improve understanding. It is assumed that there may be errors in the English translation.>
Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism: “Both the appointment process of Klinsmann and Hong Myung-bo violated regulations and procedures”
On the 2nd, the Korea Football Association announced the interim results of the special audit of the appointment of national team coaches
The president of the Korea Football Association conducted the final interview with Coach Klinsmann… The board of directors’ appointment process was omitted
[The inside story of the incident / Reporter Moon Hong-chul] = The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism announced on the 2nd that the Korea Football Association had confirmed the problem of improper appointment of coaches by ignoring regulations and procedures in the process of appointing national team coaches.
The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism conducted a special audit of the appointment process of the Korea Football Association, a public organization, and announced the results on this day.
The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, as the supervisory department of the Korea Football Association, has been conducting an audit on ▲the appointment process of Klinsmann and Hong Myung-bo as national team coaches, ▲the surprise pardon and withdrawal of corrupt footballers, ▲the execution of subsidies and loan execution related to the construction of the Cheonan Football Complex Center, ▲the management of coach qualifications, and ▲other operational matters, since July 29 to resolve suspicions and improve problems related to the controversy over the unfairness of the national team coach appointment process.
The final audit results are scheduled to be released at the end of this month, but the audit of the national team coach appointment process is a matter of such great interest that it was held as a current issue in the National Assembly on the 24th of last month, so the interim audit results were announced this time.
The requests for disciplinary actions such as accountability, correction, caution, improvement request, recommendation, and notification based on the audit results announced this time will not be individually processed, and the level of disciplinary action will be determined comprehensively by reflecting the final audit results to be released at the end of next month, and then the request for disciplinary actions based on the audit results to the Korea Football Association will be made.
The Korea Football Association has explained that it complied with all relevant regulations in the process of selecting the national team coach, but the results of a special audit confirmed the issue of improper coach selection that ignored procedures.
First, when selecting Coach Klinsmann, the Korea Football Association neutralized the Power Reinforcement Committee, and the president, not the Power Reinforcement Committee Chairman, conducted the second (final) interview of the two final coach candidates, and omitted the board of directors appointment procedure.
According to Article 12 of the National Football Team Operation Regulations, the national football team coach is appointed by the board of directors upon recommendation by the National Football Team Power Reinforcement Committee.
However, the Korea Football Association and the then National Football Team Power Reinforcement Committee Chairman, even before the Power Reinforcement Committee was formed in January of last year, created a list of coach candidates and appointed an agent to contact about 20 candidates, thereby pushing forward with the appointment procedure from the beginning while excluding the Power Reinforcement Committee members.
The Power Reinforcement Committee members (6 people) were requested by the Korea Football Association to delegate authority to the chairman at the first Power Reinforcement Committee meeting.
In addition, when examining the interview process for the coach candidates, it was confirmed that the first interview was conducted by the Chairman of the Power Reinforcement Committee, the second interview was conducted by the Chairman, and the members of the Power Reinforcement Committee were notified of the results at the second Power Reinforcement Committee meeting after the Football Association signed a contract with Coach Klinsmann.
It was revealed that the Football Association did not go through the board of directors selection process during this process.
In addition, when the Football Association selected Coach Hong Myung-bo, the technical director, who had no authority under the regulations, recommended the final coach candidate, and the interview process for Coach Hong Myung-bo was also opaque and unfair, confirming that the board of directors selection process after the coach was selected and announced was a formality.
Technical Director Lee ○○, who is not a member of the Power Reinforcement Committee but is a technical director (TD) in charge of the Football Association’s technical headquarters, did not have the authority to recommend a coach, but was delegated the responsibility for the follow-up procedures for the coach selection by the Chairman and Executive Vice Chairman, and reported the decision on the recommendation priority as 1st Hong Myung-bo, 2nd A, and 3rd B.
However, the face-to-face interview process between the Chief Technology Officer and the candidate for coach Hong Myung-bo on July 5 was different from the face-to-face interviews of other coach candidates, as ▲there was no pre-interview questionnaire, ▲the Chief Technology Officer alone, ▲after waiting for a long time of 4-5 hours without an observer, ▲the coach position was proposed and requested during the interview near his home late at night, etc.
In addition, on June 27, before the then Chairman of the Power Reinforcement Committee Jeong ○○ announced his intention to resign, he reported to the chairman the recommendation priorities for the three coach candidates as 1st place Hong Myung-bo, 2nd place B, and 3rd place A. At that time, Chairman Jeong recommended Hong Myung-bo as the 1st place without conducting any interviews, and conducted non-face-to-face interviews with the remaining two coach candidates.
On the morning of July 6, when Coach Hong Myung-bo expressed his intention to accept the position of national team coach, the administrative support team of the Football Association negotiated the terms of the contract, including the annual salary, and wrote the contract on the 6th and 7th. On the 8th, the Chief Technology Officer announced the appointment of Coach Hong Myung-bo through a press conference, and on the 10th to the 12th, the written resolution of the board of directors was passed, and Coach Hong Myung-bo was officially appointed, and the contract was signed on the 15th.
During this process, some of the board of directors expressed their regret that the written resolution of the board of directors was a mere formality and gave their opinions as a yes or no decision, and there was also a request for a formal referral to the board of directors, but the agenda for the appointment of Coach Hong Myung-bo was finally passed based on the quorum (23 out of 26 directors in attendance, 21 in favor, 1 against, and 1 requesting a formal referral to the board of directors).
In addition, the Korea Football Association distributed false press releases when the controversy arose, and changed its words when the content was revealed to be false.
When controversy arose over the procedural issues surrounding the appointment of Hong Myung-bo as national team coach, the Korea Football Association explained on July 22nd through press releases that the Chief Technology Officer had recommended Hong Myung-bo after receiving consent from the five members of the online temporary meeting of the Power Reinforcement Committee held on June 30th to proceed with the follow-up procedures of ‘interviewing three coach candidates → negotiation → selecting a coach and then recommending the board of directors.’
However, during the audit process, it was revealed through the relevant video conference minutes and statements from related parties that the Chief Technology Officer had not been delegated the final authority to recommend the coach by the members of the Power Reinforcement Committee on June 30th.
In response to the questionnaire on September 29th, the Korea Football Association reversed its position, stating that the temporary meeting on June 30th had no regulatory basis to be recognized as a formal meeting that could delegate the authority to decide on the coach to a specific person. The Power Reinforcement Committee’s function in selecting the coach had already ended when it delegated the authority to recommend the coach to Chairman Jeong ○○ at the 10th Power Reinforcement Committee meeting.
The Korea Football Association claims that Chairman Jeong, who was delegated full authority to recommend a coach at the 10th Power Reinforcement Committee, expressed his intention to resign on June 28 and requested that the Korea Football Association conduct face-to-face negotiations with the final candidates and recommend the board of directors on his behalf, and that the Korea Football Association assigned this role to the Chief Technical Officer at Chairman Jeong’s request.
However, during the audit process, it was confirmed that Chairman Jeong had never made such a request to the Korea Football Association.
Even if Chairman Jeong expressed his intention to delegate his authority to the Korea Football Association, it is difficult to see that the Power Reinforcement Committee delegated the authority to Chairman Jeong to re-delegate the authority to the Korea Football Association, and therefore it is difficult to accept the Korea Football Association’s claim that the Chief Technical Officer had the authority to recommend a coach.
The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism is conducting a special audit not only on the procedural issues in the selection process for the national soccer team coach, but also on other major projects such as the construction of the Cheonan Soccer Complex Center and the management of coach qualifications. Therefore, it plans to closely examine whether there are any inappropriate administrative actions, unreasonable work practices, or institutional improvements by the Korea Football Association, and to compile the results and make them public by the end of this month.
penfree1@hanmail.net
