The Australian network’s motivated article — a poor attempt at justifying Ms Burrow, aimed at influencing FIFA elections

This article was written in response to The Australian article published on 14th Feb. The publication, however has not entertained the comment as it clearly and logically counters their argument in defence of ITUC’s Sharan Burrow.
The motivated article is a poor attempt at justifying Ms Burrow’s and her Australian network’s covert communication, apparently aimed at influencing FIFA elections. It appears as if Ms Burrow sat beside the author of the article and dictated the story in The Australian… 
The chain of emails clearly indicts Sharan Burrow and her coterie of Aussie connections, but ITUC contends one in particular — Dated September 9, the email written by Ms Gemma Swart, Ms Burrow’s communication expert, read: “Prince Ali (bin al-Hussein of Jordan) just announced that he may run again (for the presidency). We do benefit if he wins and Sheik Salman loses. We can divert some money for a dis¬information campaign against Salman.”
Let’s look at the events leading up to the Sept 9 email.
In May 2015, ITUC openly supported Jordan’s Prince Ali. (http://www.ituc-csi.org/fifa-election-ituc-with-arab?lang=en , dated May 22) 
ITUC pressed for Prince Ali’s nomination and went out of its way to portray him as the savior of the game. As a trade union body, ITUC has no business wasting its time and worker’s money on the politics of FIFA. Their mandate is to help improve the working conditions of the workforce, nothing else. The 209-member strong world football associations should be deciding who becomes the next FIFA chief, not a trade union body.
 
In an article published on Reuters website in August 2015 — (http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-soccer-fifa-salman-platini-idUKKCN0QJ1S520150814, dated August 14) — it was clear that like Prince Ali of Jordan, Bahraini Sheikh Salman was tipped to announce candidacy, especially when Michel Platini, whom he backed as the successor to Sepp Blatter, was himself on his way out. He was the natural replacement and Ms Burrow would have known it. It’s therefore very much possible that the Sept 9 email pre-empted the formal announcement and plans were afoot to oppose Salman beforehand, as seen in the email trail. To say it’s fake sounds lame.

Also, in referring to Sheikh Salman’s loss, it is possible that they could be referring to camp of Sheikh Salman and Platini as an opposition to Prince Ali, information that was already out beforehand.
Jacquelin Magnay of the Australian reports how Ms Jemma could have written so when Sheikh Salman announced his candidacy only in October. Officially, he did, but it’s absurd on the journalist’s part to argue that they didn’t know about Salman’s intentions to run for FIFA presidency.

What happened after the September 9 email also clearly indicates how Sharan Burrow and ITUC executed disinformation campaign against Sheikh Salman. The following links shows their aggression against the AFC president.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/oct/23/ituc-sheikh-salman-fifa-presidency-not-credible

http://www.ituc-csi.org/fifa-deep-concern-over-possible

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1031166/sheikh-salmans-potential-bid-for-fifa-president-hits-early-stumbling-block-as-ituc-express-concern-over-candidacy

The disinformation was further given mileage through twitter.

What’s interesting is the fact that Sheikh Salman formally submitted his papers to FIFA on October 25 as per the Reuters article http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-soccer-fifa-salman-idUKKCN0SK03A20151026, dated Oct 26. How come ITUC had the information beforehand having released the article two days prior? (http://www.ituc-csi.org/fifa-deep-concern-over-possible, dated Oct 23)

It is apparent to anyone with a reasonable understanding that the email trail is authentic. Why would The Australian then produce something that fails to make sense?