I don't care. Someone raised the topic. I attempted to shine a bit of educated light. If one can consider the influence of our president, one can try to make sense of a curious vote.
I saw complaints on Twitter from the Guinea football federation over the voting, after its vote for the U.S. instead of Morocco was revealed. So Guinea and Brazil cancel each other out.
But for the those who care, the Brazil vote merits explanation. I don't care. Fifa politics bore and disgust me. But there's a cultural dimension at play, one that goes beyond - I'm reluctant to say "transcends" - soccer. I'm not surprised. I don't care.
I think we can all agree that culture, politics, and money were/are heavily involved in FIFA. Half of Moroccos bid was that the US Soccer Culture is poor and wouldn't know today's stars. Trump had a part, probably some negative and some positive. My take is he was probably a net positive. He probably talked with leaders about it, from a purely business side of it. And he showed a real interest in winning the bid. My guess, and this is all it is, is Brazil was probably part of an alliance with countries who stated privately theyd vote that way. Then changed their minds before the public vote happened. But who knows, the great thing is I can take my kid to a world cup game and soak it in. I'm thrilled.
By the way, one can care and celebrate. If someone gives the old cowardly chop or flops when honestly marked, I'm going to remember win, lose, or draw. One would be silly not to remember.
While we're at it, has anyone come across a quote from Michael Bradley? Or is he too busy with the correspondence work from Fletcher?
No one is obligated to vote for a given bid. In a way, South America has gone against its own interest voting for the USA, since that means the 2030 "Mundial del Centenario" is less likely to be awarded to the Argentina-Uruguay bid. Unless CONCACAF has promised their votes, that is. Brazil was supposed to go along with Spanish-speaking Latin America (they almost always do), but I guess they had some lateral geopolitical considerations (read: business with China in Africa) to push their vote the other way.
Perhaps, but his three (possibly four) attempts to buy an NFL team, his two (probably three) attempts to buy an MLB team, his backing of the Independent Baseball League, and that notable time when he bought the USFL's New Jersey Generals and led an ambitious scheme to directly compete with the NFL and force a league merger which led directly to the USFL's meteoric decline and bankruptcy - these were all investments straight from the heart. He certainly didn't profit from any of them. Completely off-topic but mildly interesting tangent: To the 90% of people who don't know what the USFL was - it was a startup gridiron football league in the 1980's which had early success by avoiding competing with the NFL, instead playing the spring, focusing on smaller markets, and building low-money rosters. They benefited from a lull in the NFL's popularity, and introduction of rule changes that changed up the game (eg. the 2-point conversion). Then Trump convinced the owners to a more aggressive strategy, so they would go directly against the NFL, by playing in the fall, signing big-money contracts, and playing in major cities. They promptly lost all broadcast deals, went way over-budget, and went bankrupt in a year. Then they went to their plan B: they sued the NFL, claiming it was a monopoly. They sought damages of $567 million - which, under antitrust law, would be tripled to $1.7 billion. Their plan was to win the case, forcing the NFL to the bargaining table, at which point they'd make the NFL agree to absorb their teams. And they actually won! The court ruled that the NFL was indeed an unlawful monopoly, and that the USFL was in the right. However, the court also ruled that the USFL's bankruptcy had less to do with the NFL's monopoly and more to do with their terrible business decisions - so instead of $1.7 billion, the court awarded them ... one dollar. Which, under antitrust law, was tripled to three dollars.
3/4ths of the state legislatures and 2/3rds of the House and Senate. In other words, the equivalent of San Marino defeating Spain in a Euro qualifier: Impossible.
There have been 16 in the last 220 years, and 2 in the last 50, while political polarization has increased dramatically in the last 2 decades. Impossible is the right word, given how difficult it has been and how much more difficult it has become.
Of course. Furthermore, Brazil could have read the tea leaves and concluded that its vote would only be symbolic, yet still strategic. I never suggested, by the way, that Brazil was obligated; I was merely addressing the question of motivation.