"Everything I did was honest, fair and transparent." That's John Martin's position, and he's not budging from it — not while FIFA continues its review of two agency agreements made during his time as Shamrock Rovers CEO.
The review stems from a complaint lodged by the mother of Hoops teenage striker Michael Noonan with the English FA over the handling of those agreements. Rovers subsequently confirmed they are working with FIFA to establish whether any of its rules were broken. No findings have come back yet.
Martin's defence — and its limits
Martin, who left Rovers to become FAI director of football last September, was speaking at an FAI media event and made no attempt to avoid the subject. He spoke about giving "every drop of energy" to the role at Tallaght Stadium and said he's proud of every decision he made there.
But he did leave a small crack in the door.
"Of course you look back and say maybe I might have done this different or that different," he admitted. "There are always things you would probably do a little bit differently for sure." Whether that amounts to a procedural tweak or something more substantive is exactly what FIFA is there to determine.
When pressed directly on whether an error was made around the agreements, Martin's answer was telling in its vagueness: "I don't know. I suppose it probably depends what comes back."
The FAI is backing him — for now
FAI chief executive David Courell has been publicly supportive, saying he's "satisfied that John operated in good faith" based on what Martin has told him. That backing carries weight, but it's also conditional on what FIFA ultimately concludes.
Rovers, for their part, distanced the club from any wrongdoing early on, stating in February that they are "not the subject of investigation" from the FA, FAI, or FIFA — only engaged in a review process. The club also insisted its relationship with Noonan and his family "continues to be extremely strong."
For now, everything hinges on what comes back from FIFA. Martin says he's waiting for that clarity too. "I suppose when something does come back, maybe there's something to discuss at that stage."
Until then, his position is set: nothing to apologise for, open to scrutiny, and confident the review will bear that out.
