Chuck Blazer was fired as CONCACAF general secretary, then he wasn't. It is just another day in world football, be it in FIFA or one of its confederations like CONCACAF. Blazer was the whistle-blower who compiled the evidence leading to the suspension of four by FIFA and as a reward for his ethical actions he was fired by the CONCACAF acting president Lisle Austin. The only problem is that the acting president had no authority to suspend Blazer so the American gets to keep his job.
"This attempted action was taken without any authority," a statement from CONCACAF read. "Under the CONCACAF Statutes, jurisdiction over the General Secretary rests solely with the CONCACAF Executive Committee which has taken no action. Further a majority of the Executive Committee Members have advised Mr. Austin that he does not have the authority to take such action. Chuck Blazer continues as CONCACAF General Secretary and with the full authority of his office."
Blazer found out about Mohamed bin Hammam, Jack Warner and two members of the Caribbean Football Union's attempt to bribe officials ahead of Wednesday's FIFA presidential election. He proceeded to compile evidence with the help of a member of FIFA's legal committee and sent evidence that included signed affidavits and photographs to FIFA. It resulted in all four being suspended from FIFA, ruling bin Hammam out from running for FIFA president, as he planned, and forced Warner to step down as CONCACAF president.
Now the real question needs to be asked. What is more ridiculous? Is it that Blazer would be fired for reporting bribery, as FIFA rules and basic ethics would dictate, or that a confederation president has no idea what his authority is or bothers to ask before making major decisions?