The Importance of Being Chuck

Facebook just told me that I have 27 friends in common with Jamie Trecker. I suppose that's OK - Mom always said I should be more careful who I hung around with, but did I listen? Hell no, so I get what I deserve - and anyway, I was barely aware that Jamie was still out there someplace stealing money from some website owner for what has to be charitably described as his "thoughts".

At least the guy has long since given up leading off his stuff with completely pointless and totally unrelated '80's rock song lyrics. Better we should all just die than have to revisit, say, culture Club or UB40 or Wham!:

I'm never gonna dance again guilty feet have got no rhythm

They just don't write 'em like they used to.

Anyway, the point - forgotten-but-not-gone soccer writers aside - is that I'd much, much rather share friends with a harmless feeb like Jamie than with whoever-the-fuck wrote this piece of contemptible slime.

Now normally, like most guys, I refuse to link to intellectually insulting drivel but I'm making an exception in this case because, frankly, the more notice that ridiculous pile of warm dog shit gets the better, as the writer has accomplished an amazing feat I would have thought impossible:

He managed to write an entire article where every single sentence is a lie.

Every. Single. Sentence.

Astonishing, really. There must be some kind of award we can nominate hin for. Of course, not having the manparts to actually put his name on the thing, we wouldn't know what to tell the engraver to scratch onto the plaque, which is a real shame.

At the very least I'd like to send the guy a thank you note because he managed, in one mercifully short essay - to demonstrate far better than yours truly ever could, the problem we face when discussing Chuck Blazer.

I absolutely will not Fisk his entire piece - it isn't even close to deserving that much effort - but from his very first sentence he lays out what has become "common knowledge" in this case, which is simply another term for "utter falsehood":

"In May, Chuck Blazer...alleged that Mohammed bin Hammam, who was running against Sepp Blatter for the FIFA presidency, had offered bribes to members of the Caribbean Football Union in exchange for votes."

No, that is not what happened at all, although the media seems determined to pretend that it is.

Around here, however, we know that what actually happened was that a CFU federation official called the General Secretary of CONCACAF and reported, as he is required to do by statute, that a FIFA official had handed a representative of his federation an envelope which contained 400 US$100 bills.

CONCACAFs' General Secretary, in turn, called FIFAs' General Secretary in Zurich and passed that information along - nothing more, nothing less - as he is required to do.

FIFAs' General Secretary then instructed CONCACAFs' General Secretary to engage CONCACAFs' usual contracted outside legal counsel to look into the matter and file a report with FIFAs' Ethics Committee, which they subsequently did.

Which is a long, long, LONG way from "Chuck Blazer alleged that Mohammad Bin Hammam....offered bribes to members of the CFU". For better or for worse, he did no such thing.

Now the point here - please pay attention because I intend to have absolutely no patience with commenters who feel that this piece is intended as a commentary on Deadspin, the caliber of ludicrous sewage they purvey or the painful imbecility of their correspondents - is not that the writer is a chickenshit, utterly clueless bag with which one douches.

Rather, the point is that this writer, who is a classic example of lazy, irresponsible internet jackassery, is simply reflecting the popular narrative which has become "common knowledge" among the vast majority of soccer fans worldwide.

That is to say, he lies.

(If you have the stomach it, go ahead and peruse the rest of his piece; it's nothing more than a Fairy Tale, without the charm.)

Which serves to illustrate the dilemma that I, and a lot of other American soccer fans, have in all of this: that while we're singularly unenthusiastic about defending Blazers' activities vis a vie FIFA and CONCACAF over the last 20 years, we find ourselves wishing that people would stop lying about it all.

So in that spirit, I'd like to try and inject a few actual truths into this Jack Warner-driven narrative and who better to lead off with than - well, Jack Warner himself.

Courtesy of BigSoccers' legendary Pablo Chicago comes an example of the kind of cynical rubbish which the world football media, for some unexplained reason. is choosing to uncritically report:

Warner says that the CFU paid Blazer $750,000 in three installments, but vehemently denies that the money represented, as Blazer has averred, the repayment of a personal loan.

Which is fine, but what he neglects to add - and the writer apparently didn't think important enough to ask - is what then it actually WAS for.

Since Warner controlled the CFU like it was his personal property - in fact, he still does, a fact which FIFA is electing to ignore - and everyone knows that they didn't buy a case of line marker paint without Jack approving the espenditure, then what was it that Blazer WAS paid for?

Warner wants to have it all his own way: he wrote the checks but he doesn't know why.

Apparently this is an example of Blazers' mind control abilities: he somehow got Warner to write him checks against his will which he knew nothing about.

The same goes for the payments, which we're told were commissions, for which CONCACAF reportedly paid Blazer almost US$10 million over the last five years.

We'll most definitely take a closer look at those in a couple of days as they do indeed raise some questions.

For now, however, I'll only point out that in that case as well Warner is strongly implying that he knew nothing at all about them, and that too is simply laughable.

As Jack is fond of reminding us, Blazer is a CONCACAF employee. Warner, on the other hand, was the duly elected president.

Yet in a recent quote from a T&T Media story, Warner is asked about the payments and is quoted as saying that yes, he had "heard that Blazer was paying himself a commission".

Excuse me?

Are you really trying to get someone to believe that Chuck sat around writing himself enormous checks every year and Jack only knew about it from hearsay? We're supposed to believe this hogwash from the biggest serial kleptomaniac in world sport?

Of course, Jack has much bigger problems today, as FIFA has just announced that it's terminating the sweetheart TV rights deal that he has made tens of millions of dollars off of over the past decade or so.

Specifically, FIFA announced today - hat tip to BS Ultra "Golazo" - that they just discovered that Warner, as President of the CFU, has been giving Caribbean TV rights to the World Cup to a company called JD International, owned by some guy named Jack Warner. What a coincidence.

JD International, in turn, sold the rights to third parties, among them Jamaica, for between US$18 and 20 million.

Of course this has been going on for years - I've written about it myself on more than one occasion - but FIFA is suddenly shocked to learn of it.

FIFA has been giving Caribbean TV rights to the CFU (ie. Warner) for $1 a year since, I believe, 1994. The expectation, or so they claimed, was that the CFU would peddle them around the region and make a few bucks. In point of fact it was always an overt payoff to Warner for his loyalty to Sepp Blatter.

So of course Jack being Jack what really happened was that he assigned those rights to a company he personally owns and then sold them in places like Jamaica and pocketed the money.

This criminal thieving bastard is the guy who we're now supposed to believe when he talks about why Chuck Blazer got a couple of checks?

Next: Secret Payments, Caribbean Banks and the FBI