The man who says players that receive racist abuse from opponents during a match should shake hands with the abuser and forget about it now accuses those investigating possible corruption within FIFA of being racist. The man really is a grade A ****
I imagine the lack of replies to this post speaks volumes about how there's really nothing to add to that. Except that I suspect the next president will be just as bad, given the guff I hear coming from UEFA and various footballing dignitaries. Thinking that the boss of FIFA has any connection with what you love about football is like thinking that the head of Nestle must really love cheap chocolate bars.
My initial reaction was that the racism claim is a deliberate load of crap to distract from the real **** storm which is the corruption. The best way to tackle it would've been for Dyke to dismiss it as blatant diversion and reiterate on the importance to have a full, open and impartial investigation but he's got himself caught up in the slanging match by taking the comments at face value. Now Blatter and FIFA can focus down this line and before we know it the ones that have been caught out dealing in backhanders will be allowed to resign with their reputations and wallets intact. On the plus side Qatar will surely not be able to host the World Cup now.
Told you, nothing doing with Sepp until he croaks it. And then it will all come out in the wash (courtesy of those who remain and were complicit but now have to save their arses) .
There were certainly racial undertones to Ensil's criticisms of Qatar being awarded the World Cup - if you consider a statement saying that at no point in history have the Arabic people done anything good or worthwhile to be an "undertone"...
The CEO of Nestlé. Now there's a nice bloke! [video=youtube;4C29_U0Ksao]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C29_U0Ksao[/video]
The decision to award Qatar the World Cup 2002 was/is a contrived, corrupt insult to the game. An insult fabricated by low life crooks like Blatter and his cronies. The sooner scum like him are removed from the game (and preferably, the planet) the better!
I got bad news for you mate. As soon as Blatter goes, another one cut from the same cloth will take his place. The only way to solve this is to take FIFA out of the equation altogether and it would take a monumental, collective effort by many influential countries to make that happen. However, the likes of Blatter know this is highly unlikely due to the game falling into disrepute and chaos, and thus, get away with greed, corruption and deception all the time, knowing full well we are powerless to stop it. The only way to make your voice heard is not to go to the tournaments, not to buy the merchandise and not to support or buy from the sponsors. Cut yourself off completely. With these types, it always hurts them most where it matters most... their pockets. It means tens of millions of people would have to boycott the whole thing. Possible? No. Highly unlikely, impossible even and that's what they're banking on.
The man's an idiot,he's been found out and trying to wriggle out by claming it's racist,grade "A" twat
A splendid idea! Perhaps the old bastard would like to do us all a favour and be the vanguard for this?.. http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/4961...tball-will-be-played-on-other-planets?ICID=OP
Some news reports were saying that big commercial sponsors are not happy about all the corruption claims surrounding the Qatar bid. That might make FIFA wake up.
There's a piece in last month's WSC that shows the sort of machinations going on at FIFA, essentially it's an organisation held together by everyone trying to curry favour with Blatter - to the point that, even though many of their members don't agree with him and are waiting for the day he steps aside, nobody wants to risk losing any favours he owes them by stepping out of line. As I said way back when Russia and Qatar were given the World Cup, it's less to do with corruption and more to do with FIFA wanting to have different countries hosting the World Cup. Think about it for a moment: in 1994 they had the World Cup in the USA (a country without a domestic league when they were awarded the tournament), in 2002 it was the first ever Asian World Cup in Japan & South Korea (despite Japan never qualifying for the tournament before) and in 2010 it was the first ever African World Cup (where games were often sparsely attended as the ticket prices were well above what the locals could afford), and next on the slate it'll be Russia, then Qatar. FIFA have this brilliant idea that they could host a World Cup in various new countries without ever thinking about whether they should. ...and, no, England should not have hosted the 2018 tournament. The bid was based on entitlement (just like the failed 2006 bid was), but more disturbingly was the presumption that clubs like Nottingham Forest and Plymouth Argyle would be expected to increase the capacity of their stadiums for "the greater good" of The FA, even though that means they would have been mortgaging their very futures in doing so. There's also a certain irony that, while it was Australia who were jumping up and down about Qatar bribing FIFA officials, it turns out they are just as guilty of the exact same offence: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...rocked-by-corruption-allegations-9474059.html
"FIFA have this brilliant idea that they could host a World Cup in various new countries without ever thinking about whether they should." People could live with that if there is no chance that any FIFA officials involved are on the take.
Your USA analogy escapes, for starters. It's a country of over 250million people. If FIFA's true objective was to spread the games's popularity, then yes, I can see the logic. Qatar is a completely different kettle of fish. Their election as hosts for the 2022 WC has little or nothing to do with popularising the game, but everything to do with massive corruption. Whilst I don't doubt that certain "influence" has been exerted in the decision of past awards, to compare the cases for choosing the USA or Australia with the incomprehensible election of Qatar, is misleading, at best! The only possible good thing to come from this farcical decision, is to expose Blatter and his acolytes for what they are. Contemptuous scum!
I doubt fans could live with it if their country was littered with white elephant stadiums as a result of hosting a World Cup. For example, Portugal have several white elephants dotting the landscape following Euro 2004, while Juventus fans hated the Delle Alpi but they were stuck with it for the best part of twenty years. Whenever the population argument is brought into it, there's two facts that prove it to be an irrelevant argument: i.) Uruguay's population in 1930 was 1.2m, which is less than Qatar's current population - so does that mean Uruguay were unfit to host the first World Cup due to them being a small country? ii.) The US population in 1994 may have been 250m, but how many of them were football fans? And for the football fans that were there, as the US didn't have a professional league until 1996 who did they support? In the case of the USA and Japan/South Korea, the various FIFA bods thought of themselves as some kind of footballing philanthropists who were bringing football to the far-flung reaches of the world, no doubt believing that once the World Cup planted the seed then a football fan culture would blossom (which sounds a lot like the "legacy" bollocks we were getting fed by Seb Coent and his cronies that has proven to be less pie in the sky and more a Cornish pasty doing its best impersonation of the Hindenburg) and while you can point the finger and yell "corruption" at Blatter and Jack Warner, there were 22 people voting for the hosting of the World Cup so to say that every single one of them must've been bribed is simply foolish - not least because, if FIFA were corrupt from top to bottom, surely Australia would've got more than one vote given they've been found to have been involved in some shady dealings as well?
Spurious nonsense! Firstly, WTF has the population of Uruguay the best part of a century ago have to do with anything? So, if it's bollocks giving the WC to these insignificant populations in the hope of spreading the games's popularity, then please explain to us what the purpose of awarding it to a giant sandpit in a the middle of a summer cauldron is! I'm sure we'd be fascinated to hear the rationale for it! I'm sure you have one, FIFA certainly don't!. I'm sure that many if those who "came to the I depend conclusion" that Qatar was the obvious place to host a WC, either had their bank balance stuffed full of oil dollars, or were currying favour with the Swiss scumbag! In conclusion, YOUR argument is total bollocks. There is clearly no, even remotely logical, reason for the award of the world's premier football tournament to Qatar, other than it was bought and paid for.
WTF does the population of the US a couple of decades have to do with anything? You brought it up, not me. And, as I said, it's an irrelevant argument - because if the population of a country has any bearing on who hosts a World Cup, that means that China and India should take turns hosting it. Has there been a World Cup in the Middle East before? No? There you go, FIFA's rationale - as I explained quite clearly in post #15. Australia get caught bribing officials, but they only got one vote and were eliminated in the first round of voting. Are we supposed to presume that Qatar officials outbid all but one FIFA delegate the Aussies bribed, as if it were some kind of eBay auction? Come on! No, actually, my argument is not bollocks - nor does it insult anyone's intelligence by simplifying the argument. Let's start with the ballot process: if it solely comes down to corruption, why did it take four rounds of voting for Qatar to obtain the twelve votes necessary to stage the World Cup? Compare this to the bidding process for the prior World Cups: Germany won on the third ballot, South Africa won on the first ballot, Brazil won unopposed, and Russia won on the second ballot. What you're saying is that the Qatari organizers forgot to bribe one more FIFA official...and that doesn't stand up, given the voting in each round went: 11, 10, 11, 14. Are we supposed to believe that one delegate forgot who he was paid to vote for in the second round? No reason to award the tournament to Qatar? There was no reason to award the tournament to the USA or to Japan/South Korea, yet there's never been any claims of corruption in either case. I've clearly stated the real problems at FIFA aren't corruption, but the way the place is structured: it's based on everyone owing somebody a favour, and obviously the one person they want to curry favour with the most is Blatter. For example, take the last FIFA election: to get on the ballot you needed to be nominated by one of the 208 national federations in FIFA, so which one do you think nominated Blatter? Switzerland? France? Qatar? Any other nation that apparently "hates" English football? No - Somalia. And, by complete coincidence, guess which East African nation's national stadium had a FIFA-funded renovation last year? That's the thing about owing favours, it's a case of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" which isn't corruption, it's merely insidious. There's numerous issues with the way FIFA are set up, be it the delusions of philanthropy that dictated that the 2010 World Cup would be held in Africa whilst never considering that maybe lowering ticket prices so the people of South Africa could afford to go to games, be it the snouts in the trough mentality that saw them request that the Holland/Belgium bid for 2018 made the money FIFA would make from the tournament tax exempt, be it dictating to organizers that only Budweiser be drunk at their stadiums (although the Germans, to their credit, challenged FIFA on this in 2006 and were allowed to serve Bittburger), and everyone queuing up to have Blatter scratch their backs. No, ignore all of those valid concerns about how FIFA is run, and just keep yelling "corruption" so you miss the point entirely.
