You're confused. The Council doesn't have equal representation. Parliament is the one w/ the one man-one vote principle. And why doesn't FIFA have conflicting sovereign rights? You compared the FA to sovereign status. Each FA has the right to govern the game (and its players, coaches, etc.) within its jurisdiction under certain parameters handed down by FIFA in the same way each state has the right to govern its inhabitants within certain parameters handed down by the federal government.
The basic needs are the same for everyone: health, security, food, education, entertainment and etc. How much would the Solomon Islands' citizens care if their FIFA vote weighted half of Australia's? Now think about the reverse situation. Football is a matter of life and death in some countries and an afterthought in others. The game's destiny should be decided by the ones who care. Someone was wise enough to take the UN's Security Council as an example. Do you want North Korea having the same vote as your country?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council You seem to be confusing the European Council and the Council of the European Union. FIFA gives rights to FAs? The federal government gives rights to states? You have things very much the wrong way around. No. But I don't try and pretend that the way the UNSC is run is in any way fair or democratic.
Not everything is supposed to be democratic, is it? Some relations are better run by those who have more power/knowledge/responsibility like the military, parent-children, football teams, UNSC and... FIFA!
I don't mean it's wrong particularly. I just mean that there's nothing inherent in bodies for sport, (football's just a game at the end of the day), being related to sovereign states. It's not like the football of England is going to declare war on the football of France, is it. You could just as well have football areas like Europe, Asia, North and Central America, South America, etc. In fact we HAVE got those areas used in the qualification rounds for the WC so, logically, it could be argued that each one of those should have a single vote. The point is there's nothing set in stone with this stuff. That's all I meant.
"Lots of water has flowed under this bridge" today, but I 've been out of here for job issues, since then, but as it appear as a direct question on me, I'll answer it now (late, ) : If you ask me, I believe no one should have more power than anyone else in tough decissions that affect all the same, but as many have openly suggested it as the only alternative viable to solve the problems related to FIFA's actual situation, it's just that I'm trying to be open to others opinion (which as said, isn't mine), on the issue and therefore I express my opinion on their respective ideas, in order to try to perfect it. Although as this is my opinion, and I'm just a fan of the game, I could be totally wrong on this,
This hasn't been true since before dear old Bert was at the helm. FIFA derives its power from carefully organised administrative structures, access to which is bestowed upon member organisation on a grace and favour basis. How else do you think Blatter - and before him Havelange - could play any tune, no matter how discordant, and have the hoipolloi hum along?
Fair opinion, although completely biased and wrong. If it not were up to FIFA's concern, Football wouldn`t have the importance to almost the whole world as it has nowdays and football wouldn`t be considered the king of sports and even this whole forum wouldn`t exist. Due to FIFA's involvement, football is played in many countries, and through its diferent programs is that we've seen the development of the game everywhere in the world, included among them, your own country : the USA. About it, having problems within itself, that's another issue. But, in fact, FIFA has never been or worked perfect.
But that's no reason to think that it couldn't or shouldn't be better than it is or ever has been. How much money has gone out of the game in brown envelopes that could have improved the game? How much have individuals made at the expense of the people and associations they are supposed to represent?
Lots of it. But never forget one thing about FIFA : Their interest in the development of football, has no philanthropic objective, but to earn themselves more money in their pockets. Anyhow, most of the individuals you mention, are there first for themselves and only secondly for their associates (clubs and people). Most club officials are equally as greedy themselves, and also wish to be in the clothes of those who govern FIFA, for the same reasons.
What we need is a measure of how serious different nations are about football. No such measure is going to be perfect, but if it roughly relates to a combination of how popular the game is and how big the country is, then it woulds be a big improvement on one vote per member. Minor footballing nations with similar interests should need to gang up to match the voting power of a key footballing nation, not to massively outvote them. Ideally the measure to be used should be one that's already endorsed by FIFA. Inevitably there is scope for bickering about how exactly the calculation should work, but the main thing is that the maths end up being transparent. So, I'm going to suggest FIFA ranking points. Yes, really! They vary a bit over time, but not by that much, and to my mind there's the right sort of spread. Here are some selections from the ranking as it stands: 1 Spain 1857 2 Netherlands 1702 3 Brazil 1425 4 Germany 1413 5 Argentina 1267 52 Hungary 559 53 Belarus 557 54 Peru 548 55 Jamaica 546 56 Costa Rica 541 101 Kuwait 320 102 Bolivia 312 103 Gambia 308 104 Syria 295 104 Sudan 295 104 Angola 295 151 New Caledonia 123 152 Curaçao 121 153 St. Vincent and the Grenadines 116 153 Liechtenstein 116 155 Fiji 103 196 Bhutan 9 196 Bahamas 9 196 Brunei Darussalam 9 199 Aruba 7 200 Timor-Leste 3 200 US Virgin Islands 3 and finally 6 passengers: 202 Andorra 0 202 San Marino 0 202 Anguilla 0 202 Montserrat 0 202 American Samoa 0 202 Papua New Guinea 0 So, associations halfway down the table have about 1/4 the voting power of Argentina. Minor nations about 3/4 down have about 1/10. Below that, voting power dribbles away to nothing. The gaps between the top 5 look a bit wide, but it's actually just a ratio of 1.5:1 and it's only temporary, I could live with that. Overall it looks about right to me.
Er.... do you mean Due to FIFA's involvement or DESPITE FIFA'S involvement? Actually he's English mate, (although he played for the states if memory serves).
NEWS CONCACAF suspends acting president Lisle Austin http://www.usatoday.com/sports/soccer/2011-06-04-566424332_x.htm
It's childish to complain about just everything done by FIFA in it's history. FIFA did have an important part in developing football in Africa and Asia. Even though we can argue about why they did it, the result is there.
Democracy is a means to an end, not an end to itself. Which organization fulfills its mission better...the UNSC or the full UN? The answer is obvious.
Due To FIFA's involvement. Since the 60's and specially through the appearance of Mr. Joao Havelange as president of FIFA, there has been an opening towards a more active participation to more representatives of nations diferent than the ones from Europe and South America. Also there is many programs sponsored by FIFA in order to allow or help to the development of the game in far distant regions where football wasn`t the most popular sport in order to change the minds of those people there making it more important. ooops, my mistake,. I really thought he was from the USA according to his public profile, but on reality not everyone who lives in a given country, automatically becomes a natural of the country where he resides, my big error on this...... Sorry england66 , wasn`t meant to offend, in no way. (just in case, not meaning that being a natural from the USA, is intended as an offense either. If I weren`t chilean, which I'm proud for, I'd feel great to be one myself) Thanks Naughtius Maximus, for letting me know.
Despite the many impefections in the FIFA rankings, using them as some sort of tool to allocate voting power within FIFA is as good an idea as any I've heard lately. Maybe something like this: #1-26: 10 votes per country #27-52: 8 votes per country #53-78: 6 votes per country #79-104: 5 votes per country #105-130: 4 votes per country #131-156: 3 votes per country #157-182: 2 votes per country #183-208: 1 vote per country This would make for a total of 1014 votes, with the top 52 countries holding cumulatively holding 46% of the votes (up from 25% now), and the top 104 countries holding 74% of the votes (up from 50% now). Thoughts?
All such schemes are overcomplicated. I've already suggested a simple alternative. Simply set a quadrannial calendar of rotation between the major continents. Strict turns are taken and the actual host nation is decided by individual confederations. That way, the FIFA jamboree is simply rendered redundant - and all the corruption with it. Whether, then, individual confederations want to run the show like some greasy bazaar is up to them, all any individual FIFA member would have to worry about is the health of their own confederation's processes. If someone else is as corrupt as FIFA currently is, then that's their lookout. It would also end what has obviously been one of the most divisive issues this year - the multi-bid, cross-region politics that take place as part of the voting process. If 2018 had only been available to Europe and 2022 only to Asia, then, just for instance, the US wouldn't have wasted all that time and money bidding, as their turn would have come in 2026, or whatever.
I think most of those things, (if not all of them), would probably have happened anyway because of the game. Sure, FIFA have spent money on some programs that have helped the game in some poorer countries but only at the expense of MASSIVE corruption that have actively harmed it. IOW it's a two-edged sword mate.
This is something that I actually find quite scary. Havelange is actually seen in parts of the world as trying to spread the game rather than merely increase the powerbase, which allowed him to remain in office to line his own pockets.