Well, there you are. That's what you get for not reading even what's on the current page before choosing to interject.
The latest... Fifa set to widen 'bribes' investigation as some Caribbean officials claim investigation is 'US-driven conspiracy'
US conspiracy ... why is it that every time something goes wrong in the third world, the US is to blame? It's not always our fault. Own up to your own failings, for God sake. Well, the key about the US government is that, whether the people in office are ethical people or not, the system will keep working properly either way. Ethical people will, of course, be ethical and there is no corruption to worry about. If the people in office are corrupt, as long as they do not have powers given to the other branches of government, their best chance at gaining power is actually to maintain the power they have, since they cannot have any others. The Legislature makes the laws, but it is the Executive who enforces them and the Judiciary who judges their worth. No one branch can do any two of those things, and the balance makes the system work.
In a way its good to have a media who expose these corupt members but will anything change? I doubt it. The only way to change it is to set up a rival association but then that would throw the world of football into chaos.
Man, get off my back. You already neg repped me once for not agreeing, get a life. He explained the system like it was something very particular to the US government and I found it amusing. He didn't say anything wrong.
I was using the US federal government as an example of how FIFA could work better even with corrupt officials in power. The point was that if you have the right system in place, it doesn't matter if the people in positions of power are corrupt or not.
It always matters. But I think what you're trying to say is that with the right system in place, you can limit the damage a corrupt official can have over the entire process. One corrupt person, or even several, won't necessarily bring down the entire system due to the checks and balances inherent in the structure of the system. I have every confidence Placido Domingo will sort this all out.
Then where was it invented? I'm not aware of any gvt. before then having separate branches that served as a check on one another. The Roman Republic had different actors within the same branch, but I think it would be a stretch to say it had separate branches.
http://www.montesquieu-institute.eu/9353000/1/j9vvhfxcd6p0lcl/vhisjvf5mwvq Although, the Greeks, Romans, and many others had separation of powers as you mentioned. But the guy I linked to above was where the USA's founding fathers got many of their ideas from and the idea of "checks and balances". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Secondat,_Baron_de_Montesquieu
The three power system works well under some level of corruption. Most democratic countries have the executive, legislative and judicial, but when the corruption spreads there is no stopping it. Unfortunately, Brazil is an example. We know that FIFA is tainted from top to bottom, so this system would fail too.
Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Cameroon, Chile, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, England, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Honduras, Iran, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, North Korea, Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Ukraine, Uruguay, USA is 45 -- and that's just the last two World Cups. For heaven's sake, there were 32 teams in each World Cup since 1998, how could there possibly be only 40 who ever participated? The list of all teams ever from FAs that still exist (sorry, East Germany): Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo DR (as Zaire), Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, England, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia (as Dutch East Indies), Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kuwait, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, North Korea, Northern Ireland, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Scotland, Senegal, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, USA, Wales is 75.
You are obviously correct. Maybe the number I read was about frequent participants according to some criteria. I'll try to find it.
Ah, once you open up the possibility of criteria, it is the case (and here you do need to include East Germany, or count Czechoslovakia twice) that exactly 40 teams have ever finished in the top 8 at the World Cup: Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Chile, Croatia, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, East Germany, England, France, Germany, Ghana, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, North Korea, Northern Ireland, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia (as Soviet Union), Senegal, Serbia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, USA, Wales.
So how about this for a reform proposal: Only the 75 nations which have previously qualified for the World Cup get to vote on World Cup related issues, including hosting rights. Or, if you want to narrow things down a little further, only the 58 nations which have qualified in the 32-team World Cup era (i.e. the past four World Cups) get to vote on World Cup related issues (Bolivia, Canada, DR Congo, Cuba, Egypt, El Salvador, Haiti, Hungary, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Morocco, Northern Ireland, Peru, UAE, and Wales would not get votes under this option), with a country losing it's vote if it does not qualify for four consecutive World Cups (i.e. Austria, Scotland, Norway, Bulgaria, Jamaica, Iran, Colombia, and Romania would lose their votes if they did not qualify for Brazil 2014). Under option A, your voting breakdown across federations would be: UEFA - 31 votes (41%) Africa - 14 votes (19%) South America - 9 votes (12%) Asia - 11 votes (15%) CONACAF - 9 votes (12%) Oceania - 1 vote (1%) Under option B: UEFA - 27 votes (47%) Africa - 11 votes (19%) South America - 7 votes (12%) Asia - 7 votes (12%) CONCACAF - 5 votes (9%) Oceania - 1 vote (2%) So under option B (need to have qualified for one of the past four WC's), Asia and CONCACAF would lose some power to UEFA, since they both have a fair share of countries whose WC appearances came quite a while ago. Thoughts?
So how about this for a reform proposal: Only the 75 nations which have previously qualified for the World Cup get to vote on World Cup related issues, including hosting rights. Or, if you want to narrow things down a little further, only the 58 nations which have qualified in the 32-team World Cup era (i.e. the past four World Cups) get to vote on World Cup related issues (Bolivia, Canada, DR Congo, Cuba, Egypt, El Salvador, Haiti, Hungary, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Morocco, Northern Ireland, Peru, UAE, and Wales would not get votes under this option), with a country losing it's vote if it does not qualify for four consecutive World Cups (i.e. Austria, Scotland, Norway, Bulgaria, Jamaica, Iran, Colombia, and Romania would lose their votes if they did not qualify for Brazil 2014). Under option A, your voting breakdown across federations would be: UEFA - 31 votes (41%) Africa - 14 votes (19%) South America - 9 votes (12%) Asia - 11 votes (15%) CONACAF - 9 votes (12%) Oceania - 1 vote (1%) Under option B: UEFA - 27 votes (47%) Africa - 11 votes (19%) South America - 7 votes (12%) Asia - 7 votes (12%) CONCACAF - 5 votes (9%) Oceania - 1 vote (2%) So under option B (need to have qualified for one of the past four WC's), Asia and CONCACAF would lose some power to UEFA, since they both have a fair share of countries whose WC appearances came quite a while ago. Thoughts?
It's kind of elitist. I like it. There would be fewer countries to bribe! And it reduces the power of all the little do-nothing countries who now have way more clout than they deserve. (cough, cough, CONCACAF, cough, Asia, Africa, cough) Buy that man a beer!
You're still rewarding associations with easy world cup qualifying. It doesn't make sense for the USA to have an equal vote compared to Germany or Italy just because there is such little competition in CONCACAF.
I like this, because under this system it's those who are qualifying for World Cups who get to decide where the competition takes place. Combined with a rotation policy, this would work great.
Finishing third or better in CONCACAF's final hexagon isn't any more or less difficult than Italy or Germany winning a UEFA qualifying group. Or to put it another way, the fourth best team in CONCACAF is usually of similar quality to the second placed team in most UEFA qualifying groups. So I'm not sure what your point is...