Yeah, I read that he's from Saratoga. No generic wiki page on him, you have to go thru the 49ers propaganda page .
It is strange watching MLS again or LA Galaxy vs. LAFC on FOX after a month of World Cup games. Honestly, although the level isn't the same, I prefer watching club soccer over national teams. They just said the Gals now have Robert Taylor.
Has it mattered, who's running the league? Seems as though the main criterion for a decision will be whether the person will maintain the status quo.
At this point it’s better if LAG wins because we’ll be competing with LAFC in the standings. LAG is 12 points behind us. Oh well.
Conflict of interest? Commissioners WORK for and for the benefit of the owners. Seems natural to me...
Not the same as working for one set of owners and their individual franchise when it conflicts with the interest of the league as a whole. This is not a hard question, so I assume you are not being serious.
just being a little facetious! But it does sort of go along with the Gilded Age, part deux we currently find ourselves in...
Interestingly, both GK's are Argentine..... In other news..... MLS to investigate David Beckham’s Inter Miami over tampering allegation
Gianni's Jackpot Photo: Hannah Peters/Getty Images; design: Will Tullos Infantino, Kushner and a $4bn plan that could change football FIFA, to be blunt, is forever on the make. Earnings of $15billion from the most recent World Cup cycle? All well and good, but not enough to satisfy the governing body’s cravings. There are always more dollars to be farmed and fresh commercial pips to squeeze, as the following story is about to show. The organisation’s latest wheeze is the creation of a new company to manage its main events, including the World Cup and Club World Cup. If FIFA gets its way, a large minority stake in the new entity will be flogged to private investors. A headline screaming ‘World Cup for sale’ is a simplistic way of putting it — but it isn’t so far from the truth either. Reports about FIFA’s intentions emerged yesterday, forcing it to rush out a press release clarifying the details. It’s a highly controversial development that drew immediate opposition and condemnation. To nobody’s great surprise, the degrees of separation from the administration of United States President Donald Trump aren’t huge. Matt Slater has a full report, but these are the key points: The new company will be called FIFA Forward Enterprises (FFE), of which FIFA is prepared to sell up to 21 per cent for $4.2bn (£3.15bn). The world governing body would retain majority control. Global bank JP Morgan is FIFA’s chief advisor. More notably, the “proposed investor group” is expected to be led by Thrive Eternal, a vehicle set up by Joshua Kushner. Kushner, 41, just happens to be the brother of Jared Kushner, who in turn is Trump’s son-in-law. One UK outlet, The Times, reported that FIFA president Gianni Infantino would run FFE, on a salary not unlike that of NFL commissioner Roger Goodell (whose annual wage was last declared as $64m). FIFA would only say that its “president and administration will and must have leading roles in this entity”. The plan requires the approval of a majority of its 211 national associations and FIFA’s 37-member council. How is FIFA spinning its scheme? Well, it claims it would generate $10bn in development funding over the next four years and allow its member associations to each draw $20m in “for special projects”. Those associations would also receive increased grants, climbing to $24m in the 2035-38 cycle. FIFA says this is about “the democratisation of football worldwide”, distributing money more fairly. All critics see, however, is Infantino, above, and those around him auctioning the crown jewels. UEFA vs FIFA: ‘This crosses a line’ European federation UEFA was first out of the blocks to attack FIFA, and not for the first time. The two bodies have been at odds for some time (UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin boycotted this month’s World Cup final, in protest at some of FIFA’s governance). A UEFA statement said: “This crosses a line that football’s governing institutions should never cross. The soul and governance of football are not assets to trade — especially with zero transparency as to who gains financially. None of us are the owners of football. It is not FIFA’s to sell.” United Kingdom Prime Minister Andy Burnham voiced his objections on X. Former FIFA president Sepp Blatter warned that “the close relationship between Infantino and the U.S. president has reached a financial dimension that is deeply damaging football”. If it goes ahead, the implications of FIFA’s proposal could be significant. It points strongly to future attempts to cash in more heavily on its biggest tournaments (conversations are already underway about expanding the 2030 World Cup to 64 teams). Infantino has hurdles to clear — but as Matt notes, many national team associations will like the sound of increased revenue. And in any vote, that could well tip the balance in FIFA’s favour.