FIFA

[NSIS]

Now I've heard it all! Blatter and his merry band of thieves being portrayed as quasi football missionaries for the third world. Let's get real, the only reason Blatter gives a flying toss about Africa and Asia is that the corrupt officials there conspire with him to maintain his dictatorship. The guy is like Mugabe without the guns.

 

[humanbeingincroydon]

Yep, far better to give it to dictatorships with abysmal human rights records, instead.

According to Nation Master, the only countries that qualify as dictatorships in 2015 are Belarus and North Korea, neither of whom are hosting an upcoming World Cup. The last time a World Cup could be said to have been awarded to a dictatorship was the 1978 tournament that was hosted by the Argentine junta - but you can't blame Blatter for that, as Stanley Rous awarded them the tournament while Joao Havelange was FIFA President by the time the junta swept into power and the tournament was to take place.

In other words, leave the hyperbole in the Daily Mail where it belongs.

 

[NSIS]

According to Nation Master, the only countries that qualify as dictatorships in 2015 are Belarus and North Korea, neither of whom are hosting an upcoming World Cup. The last time a World Cup could be said to have been awarded to a dictatorship was the 1978 tournament that was hosted by the Argentine junta - but you can't blame Blatter for that, as Stanley Rous awarded them the tournament while Joao Havelange was FIFA President by the time the junta swept into power and the tournament was to take place.

In other words, leave the hyperbole in the Daily Mail where it belongs.

...and, of course, Russia isn't in any way a dictatorship?....

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

According to Nation Master, the only countries that qualify as dictatorships in 2015 are Belarus and North Korea, neither of whom are hosting an upcoming World Cup. The last time a World Cup could be said to have been awarded to a dictatorship was the 1978 tournament that was hosted by the Argentine junta - but you can't blame Blatter for that, as Stanley Rous awarded them the tournament while Joao Havelange was FIFA President by the time the junta swept into power and the tournament was to take place.

In other words, leave the hyperbole in the Daily Mail where it belongs.

In what way is Qatar not a dictatorship? It's literally the dictionary definition of one.
Russia's only slightly more debatable.

 

[paultheplug]

It all depends on your definition of dictatorship. Russia and Qatar are hardly paragons of democracy and open political debate.

 

[PowerSpurs]

Is it not because FIFA's a massively corrupt organisation and loads of them have their noses in the trough, then?
I'm sure I heard something about that on the news recently...

That is the inevitable outcome of an organisation like FIFA having so much money but if you represented say the Zambian FA why would you vote for the lot who ignored you for years rather than the guy who got you 5 slots at the World Cup and the tournament held in South Africa. Your implication that somehow the smaller members are more corrupt than the larger ones is exactly what leads to people defending Blatter. Our FA was very happy to take part in this massively corrupt process including using members of the royal family to butter up voters and only cried foul when they lost.

 

[PowerSpurs]

It all depends on your definition of dictatorship. Russia and Qatar are hardly paragons of democracy and open political debate.

I'm sure we could all agree on a definition of democracy which a country would have to comply with to get the World Cup. Something simple and non-controversial like an elected Head of State and an elected parliament. England of course would fail both tests.

 

[PowerSpurs]

Now I've heard it all! Blatter and his merry band of thieves being portrayed as quasi football missionaries for the third world. Let's get real, the only reason Blatter gives a flying toss about Africa and Asia is that the corrupt officials there conspire with him to maintain his dictatorship. The guy is like Mugabe without the guns.

I never said he was a good guy - I was just explaining why he gets the votes.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

That is the inevitable outcome of an organisation like FIFA having so much money but if you represented say the Zambian FA why would you vote for the lot who ignored you for years rather than the guy who got you 5 slots at the World Cup and the tournament held in South Africa. Your implication that somehow the smaller members are more corrupt than the larger ones is exactly what leads to people defending Blatter. Our FA was very happy to take part in this massively corrupt process including using members of the royal family to butter up voters and only cried foul when they lost.

I didn't mention smaller members. Russia are massively implicated. Are they a small member?
Given that the Somalis grassed him up in his first election, it appears that the size of the countries involved is largely irrelevant.

Blatter's been a big influence at FIFA since 1975. Viewing him as the alternative to what came before is rather odd, as it was still him and his mates.
Those that ran the organisation before his election as President are no longer in the picture. It was 17 years ago.

Re-electing a man that's either completely corrupt or utterly incompetent is pretty indefensible.
The options are that he intentionally ran a totally dodgy sports body or he didn't know what was going on under his nose.
Take your pick and kick him out.

I'm sure we could all agree on a definition of democracy which a country would have to comply with to get the World Cup. Something simple and non-controversial like an elected Head of State and an elected parliament. England of course would fail both tests.

As would places like Belgium, Canada, Australia and Denmark. Perhaps that's because you picked the wrong criteria?

 

[NSIS]

That is the inevitable outcome of an organisation like FIFA having so much money but if you represented say the Zambian FA why would you vote for the lot who ignored you for years rather than the guy who got you 5 slots at the World Cup and the tournament held in South Africa. Your implication that somehow the smaller members are more corrupt than the larger ones is exactly what leads to people defending Blatter. Our FA was very happy to take part in this massively corrupt process including using members of the royal family to butter up voters and only cried foul when they lost.

Lobbying is perfectly legal. Paying $10mil bribes into top officials bank accounts, however, is not!...

 

[PowerSpurs]

Lobbying is perfectly legal. Paying $10mil bribes into top officials bank accounts, however, is not!...

If you want to take the moral high ground then taking part in a process organised by a body that is known to be corrupt is not the way to do it even if you stay the right side of the law.

 

[humanbeingincroydon]

In what way is Qatar not a dictatorship? It's literally the dictionary definition of one.
Russia's only slightly more debatable.

The dictionary definition of dictatorship:
noun
1. a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator.
2. absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control.
3. the office or position held by a dictator.

Saudi Arabia is an example of absolute power because their king is also their Prime Minister, and since a king isn't elected neither is their Prime Minister. Compared to this, Qatar is somewhat progressive: they hold elections for the Central Municipal Council every four years in which both men and women can vote (the most recent election being on May 13th, in fact) where women have not only stood for election to the Council but have also been elected.

Obviously this is a relatively recent turn of events, hence I said "somewhat progressive", given their first election was in 1999 and women weren't allowed to vote until 2007, but calling Qatar a dictatorship is flat out wrong - especially given there's plenty of legitimate reasons Qatar shouldn't have been awarded the tournament (mainly the weather, the size of the country, their policy on migrant workers/slave labour, and the feeling they got the World Cup so Blatter could say that the Middle East would be hosting a World Cup rather than saying that they should be hosting a World Cup...which coincidentally guaranteed Blatter could have a nice little bundle of votes from Middle Eastern countries on the off chance he'd have opposition the next time he wanted to be re-elected)

 

[PowerSpurs]

As would places like Belgium, Canada, Australia and Denmark. Perhaps that's because you picked the wrong criteria?

That was the whole point - trying to get FIFA to agree a list of Members who are not qualified to have the World Cup because of deficiencies in their Government is never going to succeed. The only plausible rule is that all members are eligible. And obviously a rich country like Qatar is going to be able to influence votes. But I do think there are double standards. Abu Dhabi and Dubai are hardly paragons of democracy but no-one turns a hair when their state airlines sponsor football in the UK. But if they bid for the World Cup and happened to sponsor construction of some stadia in Africa, the Caribbean and South East Asia that would be a bribe wouldn't it?

 

[NSIS]

If you want to take the moral high ground then taking part in a process organised by a body that is known to be corrupt is not the way to do it even if you stay the right side of the law.

I would agree. And it's about time something was done, but we can't act unilaterally. We don't carry enough weight. It needs Platini and UEFA to make good on their vague threats, for once. For ages, everybody keeps saying, "FIFA is completely corrupt, something must be done" but nothing ever is. No wonder Blatter is so arrogantly complacent about the whole thing. The only thing that might wipe the smug grin off his face, is U.S. Extradition request!

 

[PowerSpurs]

I didn't mention smaller members. Russia are massively implicated. Are they a small member?
Given that the Somalis grassed him up in his first election, it appears that the size of the countries involved is largely irrelevant.

Blatter's been a big influence at FIFA since 1975. Viewing him as the alternative to what came before is rather odd, as it was still him and his mates.
Those that ran the organisation before his election as President are no longer in the picture. It was 17 years ago.

Re-electing a man that's either completely corrupt or utterly incompetent is pretty indefensible.
The options are that he intentionally ran a totally dodgy sports body or he didn't know what was going on under his nose.
Take your pick and kick him out.

But they don't have a choice between a non-corrupt and competent Blatter and a corrupt incompetent one. And most of the voters probably are benefiting in some way from Blatter's largess even if some of it is the 'right' side of illegality. I really can't see how to run a body like FIFA in a way that is immune from corruption unless the authorities start clapping people in jail.

 

[humanbeingincroydon]

I would agree. And it's about time something was done, but we can't act unilaterally. We don't carry enough weight. It needs Platini and UEFA to make good on their vague threats, for once. For ages, everybody keeps saying, "FIFA is completely corrupt, something must be done" but nothing ever is. No wonder Blatter is so arrogantly complacent about the whole thing. The only thing that might wipe the smug grin off his face, is U.S. Extradition request!

That's the thing about people demanding England withdraw from the 2018 tournament...which arrogantly assumed they'll qualify for it in the first place, but that's another question for another time.

One team withdrawing won't make any difference, because that's an easy spin job for the marketing men, when you consider that Lionel Messi probably has more endorsements than the entire England team put together so the lack of Jack Wilshere and Gary Cahill isn't going to terrify FIFA into acting. On the other hand, if the tournament had a huge, gaping void where the Spanish and German teams would be, as well as that other endorsement magnet that is Cristiano Ronaldo, that's going to get a ton of pressure on FIFA as the advertisers might be understandably upset that their investments won't be appearing.

It does say a lot that Blatter seemed to react more when Visa, Sony and Adidas pressured threatened to put the screws to FIFA last year than any vague threats of single teams boycotting future tournaments. If the way to hurt Blatter is taking aim at his back pocket, that's what needs to be done - so the real question is to find which sponsors would be interested in sponsoring a breakaway tournament...although you can rule out Coca-Cola now, as they seem to be firmly in Blatter's pocket.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

The dictionary definition of dictatorship:
noun
1. a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator.
2. absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control.
3. the office or position held by a dictator.

Saudi Arabia is an example of absolute power because their king is also their Prime Minister, and since a king isn't elected neither is their Prime Minister. Compared to this, Qatar is somewhat progressive: they hold elections for the Central Municipal Council every four years in which both men and women can vote (the most recent election being on May 13th, in fact) where women have not only stood for election to the Council but have also been elected.

Obviously this is a relatively recent turn of events, hence I said "somewhat progressive", given their first election was in 1999 and women weren't allowed to vote until 2007, but calling Qatar a dictatorship is flat out wrong - especially given there's plenty of legitimate reasons Qatar shouldn't have been awarded the tournament (mainly the weather, the size of the country, their policy on migrant workers/slave labour, and the feeling they got the World Cup so Blatter could say that the Middle East would be hosting a World Cup rather than saying that they should be hosting a World Cup...which coincidentally guaranteed Blatter could have a nice little bundle of votes from Middle Eastern countries on the off chance he'd have opposition the next time he wanted to be re-elected)

The Central Municipal council is an advisory body and Qatar is still an absolute monarchy. It's a dictatorship.

That was the whole point - trying to get FIFA to agree a list of Members who are not qualified to have the World Cup because of deficiencies in their Government is never going to succeed. The only plausible rule is that all members are eligible. And obviously a rich country like Qatar is going to be able to influence votes. But I do think there are double standards. Abu Dhabi and Dubai are hardly paragons of democracy but no-one turns a hair when their state airlines sponsor football in the UK. But if they bid for the World Cup and happened to sponsor construction of some stadia in Africa, the Caribbean and South East Asia that would be a bribe wouldn't it?

Why wouldn't it succeed? Eliminating countries with appalling human rights records from being hosts would be a start.
FIFA claim to be pushing an inclusive agenda, yet they've given two World Cups to countries with anti-gay laws. It's ridiculous.

But they don't have a choice between a non-corrupt and competent Blatter and a corrupt incompetent one. And most of the voters probably are benefiting in some way from Blatter's largess even if some of it is the 'right' side of illegality. I really can't see how to run a body like FIFA in a way that is immune from corruption unless the authorities start clapping people in jail.

No organisation of that size is going to be immune to corruption. There's always going to be some, somewhere.
Not being openly corrupt and blatantly, unapologetically so to the extent that they believed that they were untouchable would be a start.

Did some voters make what they believed was the correct decision for their country? Definitely.
Was Blatter's support limited to Asia and Africa? Definitely not.
Is he completely bent and at the head of an organisation that everyone knows is also totally bent? Is there any doubt?

 

[pabird]

I'm sure we could all agree on a definition of democracy which a country would have to comply with to get the World Cup. Something simple and non-controversial like an elected Head of State and an elected parliament. England of course would fail both tests.

Assume at some time you would have preferred President Blair

 

[humanbeingincroydon]

It occurs to me that, if there was a breakaway tournament, it wouldn't take long for it to be undermined by infighting and squabbling.

Let me start with the most obvious one: where would this be, and how long would it take before Greg Dyke mouths off like an idiot when the tournament isn't awarded to England? For example...
France - has symbolic value as that was the venue of the first World Cup of Blatter's tenure as FIFA President...but people will say Platini only awarded it to France as he's French
Germany - again has symbolic value as it hosted a WC under Blatter...but then people will dig up the pictures of Platini sitting with Angela Merkel during several Euro 2012 matches and claim conspiracy
Italy - could stage the tournament...but people will say it was due to Platini's connections at the FIFC he's had since his time at Juventus
Russia - they're in UEFA and are hosting the 2018 tournament, so if they're expected to join the breakaway and no-show their own tournament they'd presumably expect some compensation for it...which would go down as well as a cup of cold vomit
Switzerland - while that would be pretty amusing to see, it is literally on FIFA's front doorstep

It's also being implied (albeit by that well known bastion of facts and truth, the Daily Wail...) that France, Spain and Russia voted for Blatter in the election, so is that reason to believe they should not be trusted? Does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to join this breakaway group as they voted for Blatter - even though those three votes are insignificant compared to the 54 he was guaranteed by the CAF, and with 41 members of CONCACAF and 47 members of the AFC the most conservative estimate is to say he picked up sixty voted from those regions? Indeed, between CONCACAF and the AFC the only countries I can believe without a shadow of a doubt voted the other way were Australia and the USA.

That's the scary thing about Blatter: it's almost admirable that he's worked out how to keep so many nations onside at once.

The Central Municipal council is an advisory body and Qatar is still an absolute monarchy. It's a dictatorship.

Somehow this wasn't clear: Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy as their king and their Prime Minister are the same person, Qatar is not an absolute monarchy as their Emir and their Prime Minister are not the same person

 

[paultheplug]

FIFA have banned a number of senior officials from "football related activities. What else do they do then apart from lining their pockets?