The FIFA Reform: News & Analysis

While you're correct in that it would be used as a defense by Warner and Bin Hamman, does Freeh have any connections to soccer in the US? It's not like in the UK where soccer is a fundamental part of the culture and aspects of the government are deeply involved. If the '22 WC did get awarded to the USA the vast majority of Americans would either yawn or say "oh, that's nice". It's likely Freeh is neutral enough to not care whether the WC came back to the US or not, whereas wrestling control of the '18 from Russia would be a much more improtant achievement for almost any British equivilent.

 

If there is even a sniff of there being a revote on 2018 Putin will take care of it the old fashioned (and new fashioned) Russian way.....by killing people.

 

You should have been part of the bid committee!

 

Letting things run their course is what got us into this mess called FIFA. This pretend body that purports to be transparent and act in the best interests of fans when in reality it is set up, at the moment, for the sole purpose of lining the pockets of old delusional men.

Perhaps you have an argument re conflict of interest. I would argue against that. But arguing we should just sit idle is ludicrous.

We need to hound Blatter, hound Warner, the sponsors, and everyone who has been complicit in allowing this organization to become rotten at the core.

 

When I say run its course, I mean let someone more impartial head the investigation. Of course I say "more" because this thing is such a mess that I struggle to think of anyone trustworthy enough that might qualify as impartial. God knows what types of deals have been done over the years. While Gulati is certainly making no waves, remember that it was Blazer who really took the actions that got this snowball rolling. British press is giving the English FA lots of credit, but it was Blazer with his signed affidavits who produced the goods that FIFA couldnt ignore. I only say this to point out that the US reps have been among the least "idle". They have for the most part kept their mouths shut, but they took action. I know Blazer is unlikely clean himself.

I would like to see us pressure the sponsors though.

 

Fair points, English FA's moral stance on the election and accusations against FIFA only came about as a result of a govt investigation. France's government investigated thier WC fiasco, and so on.

 

You're saying that comparing, say, the Barbados FA to the US FA, in a global sporting organization, is like comparing a citizen living in Wyoming to a citizen living in Los Angeles.

First of all, I, personally, think that's a bad analogy.

Second of all, allow me to again point out that the norm around the world is to copy our House of Representatives. I'm not aware of nations copying our Senate. Our various states copy the House, but not the Senate. The implication of this is that the Senate is a BAD IDEA. Or, an idea that's a good idea only in limited circumstances.

Let me ask you this...why doesn't each confederation get 1 vote? Let's have UEFA get the same representation as OFC...what's wrong with that?

 

No, mod, the neg rep was for you saying that my opinion/statement that you didn't agree with was stupid. Which is hardly constructive and most people would consider such a thing flaming. Personally, I think complaining about neg rep in thread is far more immature.

As for everything else in your post, those are your opinions. Okay, I may disagree with them, but I'm not about to say that they are stupid.

You're using apples to oranges comparisons.

I feel that an individual's right to vote in their own country is a completely different situation than for a nations voting powers in FIFA. They may be somewhat analogous. Heck, I don't even know why I'm bothering... you made it clear how you felt when you said my comment was "stupid."

EDIT: see superdave's post above for a better explanation for why I disagree with your most recent comment. He rocks!

 

It's actually "Fédération Internationale de Football Association" which translates to English as "International Federation of Association Football".

I do agree with your general point though, although I would prefer to see some sort of criteria for membership of the ExCo. Currently, it seems to be attempting to become a who's who of footballing backwaters.

 

Agree.

The ExCo is where the problem lies. There needs to be stricter criteria set for who can be a member and tighter ethical controls. Generally less power. And a completely independent ethics committee to deal with complaints.

 

Does Barbados have the same right to host or choose the host of a WC as Brazil or Germany? I don't think so and that's why their vote shouldn't have the same weight.
The top nations, who contribute and care more about football, should be the ones running the show.

This discussion reminds of when we see a referee from some obscure country taking charge of an important WC game.

 

The real problem is that none of these systems really makes sense. If we use the idea of population then we have huge countries with no interest in the game having a much bigger say than countries that are football mad, have great history in the game and spend a HUGE amount of money following it. So India, that didn't bother to ENTER the WC for about 30 years up to the early 80's, (and hasn't qualified since even when they did), has three times as much say as the whole of western Europe. if we use the concept of 'established' football countries then we disadvantage the growing football countries in Africa, the far east, USA, etc. As we're using the idea of 'sovereign' FA's, (a strange description but there we are), we currently have a position where tin-pot dictators, (sometimes totalitarian fascists or other ne'er do-wells), use it as a way of milking some money out of FIFA and the sponsors in exchange for a corrupted vote. Often used in a blatantly political way, DESPITE FIFA supposedly being against political involvement in the matter.

So if we were starting from scratch some form of hybrid system would seem to make sense but that ignores the fact that turkey's don't often vote for Christmas. FIFA won't make the changes themselves.

As someone else suggested, maybe a reformed executive committee might be achievable.

However, (on a slightly separate note), the reality is that the success of International football is largely a function of club football in a few countries in Europe and South America. If you took the clubs from England, Spain, Germany, Italy, Brazil, Argentina and a few other places out of the reckoning the players wouldn't be able to earn anything LIKE the same amount as they do now. Put simply, this whole edifice is created on the back of OUR money and the clubs we support. At some point I can't help thinking that the clubs themselves will start to cut up rough about the use of their assets to make money for FIFA. As it becomes more and more brazen maybe that will have an effect?

I dunno.. I'd like to think so.

 

Your opinion that the FIFA and the US are equal is not a fact, you realize that?
A new law in your country impacts all people, even if indirectly. Football decisions have a lot of impact on WC teams and almost none in countries that barely care about it.

 

I can see the clubs really starting to flex their muscles over the following years, especially if they think Qatar is going to provide any sort of health risk for their players. The ECA, through Rummenigge, has already started voicing concerns about their lack of input. Without the clubs, FIFA has very little. Any mooted breakaway from FIFA is far more likely to come from the ECA rather than any national FA.

 

And the foundation political unit of the electoral college used to decide the Presidency is a state's electoral votes, which is based upon a blend of a one state/two votes and representation based upon relative population.

And the foundation political unit of the UN is a country...except some countries sit on the Security Council permanently, others occasionally, and others never have.

And the foundation political unit of the European Council within the EU is the country, yet a country like Germany or France has 8 to 10 times the voting power of a country like Cyprus or Malta.

I don't think one could argue that FIFA is as democratic as any of these institutions...or are we forgetting that Blatter ran unopposed for the Presidency in both 2007 and 2011?

 

I've read somewhere about the number of countries that have participated in a WC and it's really small, like 40 out of the 208 FIFA associates.
All these countries that have never entered either have never cared that much (India, China, US, tons of small countries that prefer other sports) or don't have the means to win a spot, because their leagues or talent pool are small.

So, I think it has nothing to do with comparing it with real people in a nation, because these people all have the same basic needs. The countries "needs" for football vary greatly.

Also, FIFA's purpose is not to be democratic, but to do what's best for the game.

 

Said differently, how is giving an FA with perhaps a couple hundred registered players equal representation with an FA that may have thousands of registered professional players, not to mention over a hundred thousand registered amateurs?

I don't think anyone is arguing for representation in direct proportion to size of FA x vs. y, but there is some sort of equitable balance that could be struck in which the most developed soccer countries + maybe a select group of countries with large commercial and ad sway voting power equal to the smaller FAs.

This might lead to a scenario in which commercial and professional interests are balanced against the needs of the smaller FAs where the wishes/needs of one side don't trample the other.