HBIC The majority of the players at a World Cup now come from the the European leagues so it is less disruptive overall if the competition is held in the European summer.
With the following exceptions from this summer: 24 plying their trade in Mexico representing Mexico, Ecuador, Argentina and the USA 22 players plying their trade in MLS representing the USA, Brazil, Australia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras 11 plying their trade in Brazil representing Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, and Ecuador 9 plying their trade in Ukraine representing Brazil, Croatia, Holland, Nigeria, Bosnia and Portugal 7 plying their trade in Argentina representing Argentina and Columbia Sprinkle in a large proportion of the Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras and Japan squads, and the twenty or so players dotted around Chile, Uruguay, Columbia and Croatia, and the numbers rapidly get a lot closer than people think. Which once again begs the question, why should teams in those leagues be happy to lose members of their squads every fourth summer while that problem never affects the Premier League, La Liga, the Bundesliga, Serie A etc?
There's a problem with this: you can cut the head off a snake and put an end to it, but FIFA isn't a snake - it's a hydra, and a new head will grow in its place. Although in Blatter's case he's quite happy to cut the legs off anyone who can overthrow him: Mohammed bin Hammam was getting quite powerful within FIFA and was going to oppose Blatter's presidency - and quite conveniently when he did so the dirt was dug up and he was tainted (although Sepp smoothed things over by giving Qatar the World Cup a short while afterwards) The same can be said for how Blatter reneged on his promise to step down so Platini could replace him earlier this year, meaning that Platini had to make a choice: to support Blatter to maintain his position as heir apparent, or throw his support behind Jerome Champagne which means he wouldn't be in charge if Champagne won the next election, and he'd be a non-person if Blatter won. He's basically a one-man production of The Borgias.
Just because there's a counter argument doesn't mean that those European etc leagues don't have a cause for complaint. It might not be a complaint that holds up but that's a different issue. Point is that the European leagues have a potentially valid interest in opposing a winter world cup. And how about this, though it doesn't sound very in keeping with the whole globalisation, like-to-buy-the-world-a-coke corporate cliche that is so often bandied about: Football was invented in Europe. The World Cup is a European invention. Everyone is welcome to join in but it's played when and how is most convenient to Europeans. Now I'm not saying this position is correct but I wonder what is actually wrong with it? The whole globalisation-as-a-means-to-world-cuddles argument is hogwash. The globalisation aspect is a money-maximising aspect - that's all. It's not some evangelical, humanitarian mission.
The leagues in England, Germany, Italy, Spain and France provided over half of the players for the 2014 World Cup. The Russian league contributed the next highest number and it now runs from August to May, too. Regardless of whether the statistics back the European season or not, the Qatar bid was made for a summer World Cup. If that changes, which it inevitably will have to if the tournament is held there, then the bid should fail.
Really - no European teams even entered the first one by the closing deadline and 4 had to be persuaded later! I have some sympathy with the argument that the Qatar bid was for a summer world cup and the goalposts were moved, but none at all for this Eurocentric view of the world. The only fair solution is that the host country can specify the optimal date for the tournament to be held in its climate and that can't be taken into account in the decision. Its really going to hurt no-one to have a month off football in mid winter
By Jules Rimet... Interesting news for the 2026 tournament: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...ve-new-Fifa-report-go-and-give-them-hell.html
I appreciate the hydra analogy. However, if anything is done - and something quite clearly must be, then the ugliest head of the current snake must be removed. As Voltaire said, "pour encourager les autres"
The whole globalisation-as-a-means-to-world-cuddles argument is hogwash. The globalisation aspect is a money-maximising aspect - that's all. It's not some evangelical, humanitarian mission.[/QUOTE] Exactly. As usual, it's all about bucks.......!
Removing Blatter won't change anything for another reason, because the whole structure of FIFA needs to be changed. I read a piece a few months ago from somebody who attempted to stand against Blatter in the last FIFA presidential election which, while self-serving in parts (the article, I mean!), it did cast light on something about how things get done: things get done on a barter system where doing someone a favour means that person will do you a favour in return, and what every delegate hopes for is the opportunity where they can do Blatter a good turn because he'll repay them. The example this guy cites is that, to stand for the FIFA presidency, a candidate had to be nominated by an FA (although that's since changed to three) and the FA that nominated Blatter was Somalia - and coincidentally, when Blatter got re-elected (unopposed) it wasn't long before the FIFA Development Fund decided that Somalia would have a new national stadium built. That's why it's rare for somebody to be nominated to stand against Blatter, because the majority of FAs around the world needs a favour from someone so daren't risk becoming a non-person in Blatter's eyes. There's a lot of comparisons I can make, and almost all of them are Italian: scheming senators of Rome looking after their own interests while sucking up to the Imperator (in the case of Blatter, Nero or Caligula spring to mind), or if you the Florentine government of Machiavelli, the Papacy of the Borgias...or if you prefer, you could just take notes watching The Godfather.
I still believe that Twatter has a weak spot. His cozy little fiefdom is run by deint of the governing bodies of the major foitball playing nations. If those were to turn against him, I.e. England, Germany, Spain, Brazil, Argentina, etc, then I think he would be forced out. Whether they can all be brought together or not is, of course, another matter.
Theoretically it could have been possible if Blatter was standing unopposed after he reneged on his promise to step aside for Platini, given Platini has UEFA behind him as well as pull with the FFF and possibly the FIGC - but with Jerome Champagne opposing Blatter at the next election that makes it far more risky for Platini to make his move as he'd be the third name on the ballot rather than the second.
What will the tempratures be when they play the tournament?Will it be hot,boiling or shake hands with the devil?
Of course the main (perhaps only) point here is that a summer bid was considered and, however dodgy, a summer bid was chosen. That can't be argued. But this whole debate does throw up the more general argument about when World Cup Tournaments should be held and if it's justifiable to have them when it is most convenient for the European (mostly) leagues or should all the world's leagues be taken into account. Now I'm not saying this is definitively the answer to that question but surely it's worth asking what's wrong with the fact that football, which is a European invention, which has rules defined by IFAB (4 members from FIFA - four from each of the British FAs), has a tournament run by FIFA, which is a European invention, and that tournament is run in the way which is most convenient to the European leagues' concerns. (Of course the sheer number of players which are based in Europe who take part in the tournament is a side-issue though also relevant to some other argument for keeping the tournament in the Northern Hemisphere summer). I do not think this is a Eurocentric view that I'm taking. Rather, it is an observation that football and FIFA are inevitably Euro-centric themselves. Just as the organisation and competition around Sumo is Japanese-centric or Kabadi is Indo-centric(?). Of course football is much more popular around the world than those sports but that doesn't alter its clear origins. (Of course sports like Sumo and Kabadi may well be very flexible if they want to grow and may, in the long run, utterly alter aspects of their rules/calendars to grow their popularity in the rest of the world. But make no mistake - the reason that might happen would 100% be a financial reason. And when something is done purely for the financial benefit of increasing audiences (i.e. sales) I think it's worth asking - hang on - does this change have any benefits that aren't financial?). I'm not 100% convinced of this argument but do not feel it should be dismissed purely because it sounds euro-centric or xenophobic or imperialist. Is it not OK for somewhere to invent a game and then basically maintain "Well anyone can play it but its our rules and our calendar. Join in if you want though - we'd love to have you"?
They really aren't and that's the trouble. The smaller nations and the less wealthy nations are more easily corruptable. I'm not saying there aren't some of those in Europe but there are more big nations that would want to oppose the kinds of dealings we're seeing. The trouble is that UEFA and the whole of Europe could turn against Blatter and he'd still get re-elected. Depsite being Swiss his populartity is in Africa, S. America and Asia which is where you see the most corruption(or the most blatant at least) in football. On Panorama(I think) had people in Ghana offering to help them stage a friendly and "greasing the palms" of the referee to get the result you want, Bin Hammam from Qatar stood against Blatter and wuickly had investigations into corruption and Jack Warner we all know about too. I agree that the World Cup timing is set up to help European football but that's also because European football is the most popular so they have sponsorship issues. Most countries have been very receptive to changing the World Cup dates, the problem has been that Qatar have it in the first place when it was so clear their bid was full of holes, not just in the timing of the tournament but the size of interest in football, total lack of football stadia and a human rights record that makes them totally unsuitable. Ukraine and Poland just shared a Euros, Japan and South Korea shared a World Cup recently and yet Qatar are able to host it alone despite being a small country with no stadiums and some nonsense about how they were going to create clouds to cool the stadiums and also air condition them too, It was a sham from start to finish.
I am stil of the opinion that if the major players, some of whom I have already listed, were to get together and threaten to boycott FIFA - maybe even form a breakaway organisation - then FIFA and Blatter can be dealt with. The problem, of course, is to get these nations to organise themselves as a United front. The longer Blatter and his merry bunch of thieves are convinced they're invincible, the longer they will just carry on with their snouts in the trough. Let's face it, the FA stance has made it almost certain that England will never host the WC again, so why not put out a few feelers and see what support is out there.
Now Bernstein, former FA chairman calls for England and UEFA to boycott next WC. I expect that Blatter will just shrug it off, but maybe if enough pressure is brought to bear, something might just change.
Blatter gets away with it because he thinks nobody cares,and is bothered about it,the europeans need to say they will boycott the next world cup and the2022 one,and put up a candidate to stand against him
How typical of The FA, acting like it was their idea to suggest UEFA boycott FIFA - two days after former DFB chairman Dr Reinhard Rauball suggested the exact same thing.
