Once again, folks, this is not the thread for debating US history, foreign policy, etc. There are some allowances being made for people to respond to claims that "only in the US" would something like the charges against FIFA officials have occurred, but I just deleted a lengthy exposition about stuff that wasn't even tangentially connected to the thread topic. I'm going to have to start banning more people from the thread if it continues.
If that's the "standard" then the US never would have - and likely never will - host a WC. Really, the only reason for moving WC '18 would be if corruption is proven in the voting for it.
this whole scandal is about politics, so i dont see why "political posts" are being deleted, other than the fact that they are consistent in one manner: they are not favourable to the US government. the US is the one who took on FIFA so by banning discussion about the US, you are taking away half the equation here. makes no sense really.
Don't be so sure. There is still plenty of filth in that organization. Removing Blatter is no guarantee his successor will be clean or that the reforms will be sufficient to clean up this mess even if his successor is clean. As long as one FA, one vote exists, corruption too easily flies under the radar. My country is far from perfect (USA). Look at Blazer. But corruption is far easier to achieve and votes are more easily bought and sold among smaller and less financially secure countries without much regulatory compliance. If this is going to get fixed, it will require completely scrapping FIFAs compliance and regulatory reporting framework. It will also require a common sense approach to who votes on key matters. It would be much easier to keep tabs on a 24 member panel than a 200 or so member voting body.
Well, I wouldn't mind at all if suggar daddies or overseas investment groups were banned from European football. I'm from Germany, and the Bundesliga doesn't allow investors to own more than 49% of any club (it's called the 50+1 rule). Therefore no Americans or Arabs are interested to spend their money, as they could never have complete control over a club. Despite that the BL pays the second higest wages on average in Europe (after the PL). The reality is that the PL gets most of its money from TV contracts. Their new domestic contract is worth 6.9 billion Euros from 2016 to 2019. Additionally they've sold the TV rights abroad for another 2.6 billion Euros. Which footballer from South America has chosen to play at home for less money and not become a mercenary? Were there any in Brazil's or Argentina's WC squads for example? They don't have to give up their loved ones, btw. They can bring them along, and buy them everything they've ever wanted from the millions they earn in Europe. And you can't honestly believe that people love playing for their national team so much that they would sacrifice their family's financial security, just so they can go to a WC every four years. People might love their country but usually they love their family a lot more. Oh well, with Blatter gone now UEFA doesn't have a reason for rebellion any more. Not that they would have done anything eitherway, though. Some UEFA countries (including Spain and France) have voted for Blatter anyway.
You know, I was having a discussion with the poster mfw13 and after a couple disagreements i repped his message about the real and concrete motive behind wanting a new (be it FIFA or just a complete new one) federation, let me quote him: "For me, the purpose of breaking away from FIFA would be to create a new organization in which the amount of political power held by a country is proportional to its footballing importance. Ideally, this would also lead to less corruption and better decision-making, but those wouldn't be the primary purposes for me. " I agree with that because it touches the main point of the discussion. This isn't about corruption, or filth or whatever, is about conflict of interests and who's got the power within the federation, and who holds how much proportion of that power. So, the "one FA one vote" system we have now may or not be fertile ground for corruption, but even if it weren't, even if all the miniature nations officials were impossible to bribe, if they were the best example of upholding the best human values, incorruptible members and so on... the main issue wouldn't be that, but rather them having so much proportional power in the federation that decides the direction of the world's football. I know you also mentioned this as a factor, i'm just stating it again cause I think it is the central debate. No one is projecting the new FIFA or is going to vote the next president worrying about him being a saint or what plans does he have about maintaining the ethic code better than Blatter... but rather who he's going to answer to, how (and if) the power will shift either back to Europe, either remain somewhat disperse with Africa, Asia, etc... everyone looks after their own interests, and they collide most of the times. So when we talk about things being fixed i think we are really talking about power shifting sides, not FIFA being cleaner.
I don't view these as two mutually exclusive issues. There is quite a bit of overlap. The biggest issue to me, however, is that the one FA, one vote principle is almost entirely impossible to police and maintain the ethical up and up because there is too much to observe. It is inherently much more corruptible than a more limited voting body. FAs that effectively have "no skin in the game" face no consequences with respect to prospective punishment. Smaller countries also have fewer stakeholders, which enhances the opportunity for corruption. How would we be able to detect money laundering and vote buying in and out of Bhutan for example? Hell if I know. What are the banking and corruption issues in the Solomon Islands? How do we know that the candidate has been thoroughly vetted in A, B, C, or D? The Financial Assistance Program and similar allocation schemes also act as vehicles for vote buying. 538 did an analysis of these programs and found no relationship between allocation levels and country size, or allocation and lack of wealth/resources (in the form of GDP PPP). http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-fifas-structure-lends-itself-to-corruption/ If there is no relationship at all, then the program is either irrationally managed, corrupt, or both. I don't see any honest argument that could reasonably suggest that the one FA one vote principle is no more corruptible than placing the decisions in the hands of a smaller group. How that smaller group is identified is a matter of debate, but I do think that this is the primary issue here. There should be a mix of traditional sport powers, larger markets, and at large regional bids to round out a voting panel. I wouldn't expect everyone on this panel to vote with the traditional powers' interests, but the traditional interests should offer some sort of flexible anchor. Japan, SK, China, Australia, India, Iran, Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt, USA, Canada, Russia, Turkey aren't exactly traditional powers, but they represent a lot of the game's global potential with some geographic diversity. Add them to England, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, Portugal, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Mexico. That's 24 countries with sizable population, marketing power, history, etc. There is some geographic diversity there. Maybe toss in a Central American/Carribbean, Middle Eastern, Eastern European, and Oceanic vote to bring it to 29. That group is hardly Euro/CONMEBOL centric, but I would expect them to arrive at reasonably justifiable decisions that protect the traditions and future of the game.
Except that the US didn't take on FIFA. The Legislative didn't vote overwhelmingly to censure them, the Executive didn't send in Seal Team 6. What happened was the Department of Justice apprehended a bunch of alleged criminals who happen to work for FIFA. That's it, that's all. There's no politics, or conspiracy theories, here.
As to the question posed by the OP, I'm all for anyone, from the lowest paid player to the richest club to UEFA itself, to leave FIFA if they got the guts.
I think UEFA by itself gets torn apart by internal struggles between stakeholders with different interests than the national federations which represent them. FIFA keeps the clubs and leagues in check with the additional level of bureaucracy separating them from each other. I don't think UEFA would be as successful in containing the club vs. country dynamic.
"You don't have a clue of about what you are talking. The reason most PL clubs are owned by foreign businessman (many from Asia, btw), is because many of them before their arrival, were broke. Very few clubs, specially among the most popular of them, were free of having financial problems. If Liverpool for instance, wouldn't have received the cash from the americans who bought it, they would have disappeared from existence. I'm not inventing stuff here. It's a reality. PL clubs, by themselves, aren't rich at all." utter lies and drivel there were numerous people in for liverpool, and the money was pouring into the epl long before foreign owners lies sorry rich you are wrong
You continue to blather on about the US. As others have said on multiple occasions on multiple threads -- this is about criminal acts committed, either on US soil, or through the use of the US financial system. It is ludicrous to posit this as a political issue, totally ludicrous. Are you saying that the evidence that has been provided through the Department of Justice's indictment, or that is visible in Chuck Blazer's admission of guilt are made up, or planted or not real or political in nature? Give us some data, rather than knee-jerk hysteria about the US. It seems like you are an apologist for Russia who is trying to throw the scent off of where the real stink is -- FIFA, as you are afraid of where it will lead. The FBI/DOJ is going to follow the trail of illegal activities to the end. They will arrest and try to convict any criminals they find. They will NOT make any recommendations on FIFA reorganization, re-votes of awarded WCs or any such things. That is FIFA's domain, not the DOJ or FBI. Now, in regards as to whether or not UEFA should leave FIFA, at this time I don't think so. BUT --- I wouldn't take the heat off of Blatter either. If what I saw as his Twitter post on another thread is correct, Blatter is a bit delusional about trying to burnish his image. A picture of him at his desk stating -- 'hard at work on reforms.' What utter nonsense. What he should be doing is picking the outside agency/person who is going to lead the reforms anything else is business as usual.
I think that a credible threat by some major Federations to break away from FIFA needs to be made real. I think the purpose would be to potentially create a new organization that stands separate from FIFA and can appeal to the rest of the world as a credible alternative. It can NOT be too euro/western-centric. I would hope that it would never come to pass, but without it, the chance of meaningful reform happening at FIFA is nill. FIFA needs to go outside for reform -- over the next four months, if all else stays the same, what we will get is a bunch of initiatives by the same group of people who have been 'responsible' for ethics within FIFA that will sound good in PR sound bites, but effectively do nothing. Even if a majority of the ExCo is arrested and put in jail, that will not force any real change at FIFA. FIFA will, as an organization, continue to behave the way it always has and replace those who are arrested without making any change. Without the threat, a real threat, from UEFA and other federations, nothing of substance will change. Negotiations is about caring, but not that much. So whatever block of federations UEFA can put together, need not care that much if FIFA is torn asunder. They must be willing to see it happen, while still fighting for change to come from within FIFA. A delicate balance, but key to any negotiating strategy.
The debt isn't questionable the epl clubs have always overspent to compete with each other, the fact is the rich foreigners have come to the epl because they have seen forecasts by analysts of future revenues and TV deals. And for your knowledge or lack of it most of the foreign owners are not bringing any money to the English game they simply are prepared to borrow it from British banks and run away if things go bad And I think you will find liverpools debts was caused by foreign investors You are wrong on so many levels, there has always been lots of money there the epl revenues are bigger then the bundesliga and serie a together, the fact it's being peddled away is another matter. So wink wink you are wrong and just admit it. Oh by the way it's 2015 not 2010 lol
I don't see it that way - only. If there is no meaningful change in the structure/rules at FIFA to root out the corruption, then I think we should leave FIFA. If the Swiss and the DOJ are able to do a deep dive on the decision to award the WC to Qatar and nothing comes up, then it could still go ahead. Now -- do I think that is possible, no. But is the decision to leave based upon Qatar going ahead or meaningful change being made in FIFA? For instance if they kept the same FIFA and just changed the 2022 WC award, would I be satisfied? Hell no.
Qatar 2022 in my opinion symbolises everything that is so corrupted and disgusting about FIFA. If Qatar 2022 will go ahead, it will in my opinion be the evidence for there not being any change at FIFA.
I understand your point, but having this as the predetermined outcome tends to feed trolls who think this is a political effort to win a WC by the US (or other NATO countries) and to deny the Arab world of a WC. I don't think you mean that, but it will play to their 'messaging'.
And this is where I feel a disconnect. If the Arab world and Nato and whoever crazy people believe that, the then they are idiots or just deeply invested in their own delusional beliefs. Especially if there's evidence to prove that the Qatar bid was not kosher.
I guess all the Western UEFA supporters who want to leave FIFA forget that the UEFA boss himself voted for Qatar. And regarding the German guy who is going on about leaving FIFA if Qatar wins: https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/0...o-saudi-arabia-in-order-to-win-the-world-cup/ What makes you think the German bid in 06 wasn't clean? All this whining about Qatar is just going on because Qatar is politically weak. Germany's bid was corrupt, S Africa's bid was corrupt, as is Russia's as well. Lot of lecturing from sanctimonious Westerners IMO.
Morroco. They tried to host it for years and years and were always outbribed. A football mad nation with a perfect football inferstructure. If FIFA elections would have ever been fair and independent from sleaze and bribery then Morroco would have hosted or would host a world cup. I wouldnt support a 2022 revote, I would support giving it to a country which sufferd from the FIFA sleaze. And Morroco sufferd through always being outbribed. Not that it matters much, I personaly still hope that we leafe FIFA and that FIFA collapses or is reduced to organising tournaments between the remaining African and Asian nations.