It's possible, however I find it very convenient that both Blatter and Havelange cynically pandered to the tiny nations in order to get themselves elected. Both then used the patronage that the office provided them with to maintain their position. The small nations then look up to Blatter and Havelange as if they have personally provided the money for these development projects, when in reality it is merely a redistribution of wealth that is taken (via sponsorship and TV rights) from the world's wealthiest powers.
Re: Fifa bribery inquiry into Bin Hammam & Warner Song could also be about Sepp Blatter, too. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5vo7jLGOb8"]YouTube - Henry Kissinger Song by Eric Idle‏[/ame]
If the rotation system were to have continued, CONCACAF was next in line, for 2018. But the problem with that is that it would mean 3 World Cups outside of Europe. This specific problem has little to do with inherent corruption and more with general politics. The rotation system probably would have continued if it were not for its complete lack of support in Europe. Of course, this was used as an excuse by FIFA to decide multiple World Cups at the same time in an open auction. So I still think you have a good idea, it just wouldn't solve all problems of course, since not all are caused by corruption.
If we were to have a continental rotation policy, I would have three rotation groups: UEFA, CONMEBOL and the rest of the world. Also, when a country hosts a World Cup, they cannot bid for another one until after their group's next World Cup. Here's how the policy would work from 2014 forward: 2014: CONMEBOL (Brazil) 2018: UEFA (Russia) 2022: Other (USA, since Qatar doesn't deserve it) 2026: CONMEBOL (Brazil ineligible) 2030: UEFA (Russia ineligible) 2034: Other (USA ineligible) 2038: CONMEBOL (Brazil can bid again) 2042: UEFA (Russia can bid again) 2046: Other (USA can bid again) And so on.
There are only 10 nations in CONMEBOL, and only 2 nations, at the most, that could host. You'd be having a World Cup in Brazil every 12 years, or maybe every 24. I think it should go Europe, Western Hemisphere, rest of world, Europe, etc.
Okay, UEFA, Americas, AFC/CAF/OFC does sound like a better idea, I will admit that. But I think the three group rotation policy would work very well, as long as the three groups are balanced. And I see at least 4 countries in each group being able to host a World Cup either now or in the near future. However, in practice, I think AFC would get the World Cups for the rest of the world as New Zealand can't host yet and I don't see any African nation hosting the event any time soon (thanks, but no thanks South Africa).
Placido Domingo?? And lots of other Blatter nonsense here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jun/06/fifa-sepp-blatter You what?
Perfectly reasonable. Here are some 'small tsunamis' if you need proof they exist. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQXizO56HAs"]YouTube - 080608 Sufing @ Pipe's‏[/ame] Of course, traditionalists often call them 'waves' but what do THEY know.
This whole thing is making me sick... What does FIFA need? Transparency, an outside group to watch dog every penny, then I will trust what is going on inside their F'n "family".
It must be nice, for Mr. Plenderleith, to live in a black & white world. He's just another cranky Brit who can't understand why their empire is irrelevant. I have no problem with Gulati's vote, under the circumstances. If Andrew Jennings assertion is to be believed, I'll welcome more US involvement in FIFA matters, and less British hubris.
Yeah, the continental rotation scheme never made sense to me with the disparity of the different confederations. North or South America hosting the WC as often as Europe just doesn't make sense due to there only being a few countries in each confederation that could theoretically host such a big tournament.
I propose a WC bid process. Phase 1: bid countries must send recquired documents to FIFA. Phase 2: bid countries must bring their bid book to FIFA and expose it entirely to public. Phase 3: insspection by evaluation team. Phase 4: The inspection team must deliver a report to the FIFA exco members one week before the public. Meanwhile the exco must determine wether bids will go to FIFA Assembly for vote. Exco members must give a note in each category found in the report. There wille be coefficents for the cases low, medium and high risks, to multiplicate with notes. The risks will be given by the report of the evaluation team. Low risk: 4 Medium risk: 2 High risk: 1 The bids which will have a score of 60% or more will be selected. The others eliminated. Exco members from bid countries shall not give evaluations. Phase 5: vote be FIFA Assembly. Members from bid countries shall not vote.
Well, as I have said, just because FIFA members are corrupt doesn't mean the system needs to be so obviously broken. The US federal government is filled with special interest groups' money and ambitious officials looking to get ahead in their careers. And yet, even with all this, the system is (usually) able to function on a day-to-day basis that (for the most part) benefits the people of the USA. Here are some of the things that make this possible. 1.) Separation of powers. In the US federal government, power is divided into three branches: Legislative, Executive and Judicial. Each branch has their own unique powers that no other branch has. For FIFA, the Legislative branch would be the General Assembly, the Executive branch would be the Executive Committee and the Judicial branch would be the Ethics Committee. The important thing to do is to ensure that the membership of the branches cannot overlap in any way. 2.) Checks and Balances. This is perhaps the most important aspect of the way the US federal government works. This ensures that, no matter how corrupt those in power are, the government continues to function well. There must be a system of checks and balances within FIFA to ensure that no one group can run wild with the whole thing. 3.) Term Limits. Those in the US government are limited from absolute corruption by the fact that they have to stand for re-election. Since this is not the case in FIFA, term limits will provide less incentive to cheat the system and promote doing what is right. However, one factor that FIFA doesn't have is that they don't hve to answer to anyone. All members of the US government are, eventually, answerable to the people of the USA.
Yes, it is astonishing how many of us are primarily motivated by the status of our Empire. I wonder, is there a statute of expiry on "Brit"/Empire fantasies by foreigners with chips on their shoulder? Even a casual student of history would know that the British Empire substantively ceased to exist in the 1960's and had been on borrowed time since Edwardian times. Meaning that you would have to be at least in your Sixties to date from a time where the notion of Britain and Empire could have some emotional hold over you. And I'm going to assume not many WSC columnists are that old. Maybe - just maybe - "British hubris" is based on rather more recent and rather more generally significant factors?