So the DFB NOT criticising FIFA over the last few years shows...that...er...it leads the way in...er...what, again? And sorry but I don't see visions of Mandela-like leadership and forbearance in the German FA thinking it's a good idea to sell German beer. Sounds like a great idea to have beer there that is local and not just have Budweiser everywhere - having only Budweiser everywhere would make any place instantly ****. So I would definitely be getting the local stuff myself but I wouldn't, for one minute, believe that the DFB's desire to do so is sheer benevolence and an exercise in good taste. You think there were no local political and economic pressures on that decision? I do not think that the DFB is evil or the English FA is wonderful. I think there's every chance that they're both a bunch of fallible, probably mostly white, probably mostly late middle-aged, probably mostly men who are in quite privileged positions and are entwined in power-structures whose ultimate aim at all times is to make money. Maybe the English FA is worse than the DFB. Maybe not - I don't know. But without some serious proof in the matter that goes beyond a German FA wanting to sell German beer I can only see the rose-tinted specs of someone looking at something exotic and believing it must be better than what they have. People do it all the time.
Looks like that slippery weasel, Blatter, is quickly trying to cover his own arse. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...the-2018-and-2022-world-cup-bids-9868603.html
You don't see the obvious difference between one FA taking a stand against FIFA's stance and The FA offering nothing but peevishness? That's the point here: The FA's stance is that of the busybody writing to complain to their local newspaper - it doesn't matter because it will have no effect whatsoever as nobody is paying the least bit of attention to them. It's also notable that, at this year's World Cup, the Budweiser stranglehold seems to have slipped once and for all: Brahma was also served at games (true, it's like drinking untreated water from the Amazon, but it's a start) while it was also notable that Jupiler were advertised during Belgium games and Quilmes during Argentina games, where in previous tournaments the approach to advertising beverages was Budweiser Uber Alles and denying entry to fans wearing clothing with rival brands' logos on them. That implies some sort of change, a small one perhaps, but that small change came from the DFB actually standing up to FIFA. What change have The FA brought to the table? None, because you don't change things by bitching and moaning to nobody in particular.
The only difference I see from your argument so far is a difference in the emotive language you use. I still do not see the differences besides a possibly-incorrect assessment of who said what first (because this is somehow important) and that the DFB fought hard to sell German beer. Oh - and the DFB (who won a World Cup bid) have not complained about FIFA publicly over the last few years whereas the English FA (who lost a World Cup bid) have. And this supposed to prove something about something. When the German FA do not publicly criticise FIFA it is laudible, when the English FA do it is peevish. Why? When German officials question whether UEFA should stay in FIFA it is heroic, when some guy who's no longer in the FA says the same it's pathetic. Again - why? Greg Dyke says the bloody obvious in stating that he'd like to see the Garcia report (days before you claim he did) and he's an absurd band-wagon jumper. When the German guy says it he's fantastic. (Or maybe he's not if he said it after Dyke? Would that be a correct assessment?). I do not understand this. Why do you want to slate people for saying things that you commend when they're said by other people purely because they did not say the thing simultaneously? FIFA are corrupt, the whole bidding process is innately corrupt (you would agree with that, no?) and yet Germany definitely greased no palms or made no promises to win the World Cup. And having won it deserve huge credit for not complaining about FIFA and the World Cup bidding process. So the Qataris are corrupt, the English are corrupt, the Australians are corrupt, various heads of FAs in places like Trinidad and Tobago are corrupt, money and promises are changing hands all over the place as bids are entered yet the country who won the World Cup is immune. Interesting. Of course we know that the German FA are guardians of truth and justice cos they lobbied hard to get German beer sold at their event! ( I can barely believe I'm typing this). The English FA deserves all our scorn for not nominating another head of FIFA but the Germans also do not nominate anyone and are exempt from criticism. Why is that? I assume that if the FA had not previously "bitched and moaned to no-one (?) in particular" about a massively, obviously corrupt FIFA then they would win your approval? No? So them publicly bitching about them is what you want? No - not that either I guess. Hmm...I really can't see that you have a single point here, to be honest. It really does look like your greater familiarity with the English FA has led to contempt that the German FA, understandably, does not hold for you. It looks to me like that very British self-loathing thing: it's British so must be uniquely ****. Hate to break it to you but I think that greed and small-mindedness might exist beyond Dover. It might even exist in Germany. God God! I bet it even exists in Sweden or Denmark! (I wonder how many Germans think that their FA is a beacon of integrity, concern for the little man who just wants to drink decent beer and fair play? Or do you think they feel as alienated and frustrated with their upper echelon of footballing bureaucracy as we do? Because, you know, everyone has cause to bitch about their bosses/leaders/politicians).
Looks like you've completely missed my argument, which explains a lot. The DFB have criticised FIFA in the past and have done so for logical reasons, such as using a World Cup to line the pockets of their corporate partners (with FIFA presumably getting a cut) which means that the money made during a World Cup does not stay inside the country hosting it - be it the beer served at stadiums, or the ticket handling company who get the booking fee. The DFB identified a problem, and criticised it. Compare this to The FA, who don't identify a problem yet bitch and moan. How do you solve a problem when you don't identify the problem to begin with? That's like approaching a crossword puzzle with a welding torch, and the end result will be just as much a waste of time and look just as idiotic. This is also where people's approach to FIFA is all wrong: the belief that removing Blatter will cleanse the entire organization, which is absurd for the simple reason people look at FIFA like a corporation, so removing a CEO will change things. FIFA isn't like that at all, it's a political system, and just like you won't change the British political system by removing David Cameron from the top of it, you won't change FIFA by removing Blatter. After all, when Joao Havelange was in charge of FIFA there was plenty of shady dealings that he was directly involved in (both with FIFA and the IOC) but did that change overnight when his replacement was elected? There's a reason you can't see that I have a single point - because I have several points. That's another problem with people discussing FIFA, they're so simplistic about it they miss the point. For example, saying Qatar only got the World Cup because of bribery is incredibly simplistic and also incredibly wrong - there's many other angles that FIFA approached this from that was just as dodgy, such as: 1.) Awarding a World Cup to a region that has not hosted a World Cup before...with the obvious bonus that they neglected to mention in the whole "expanding the FIFA family" spiel that the region they're expanding to happens to be cash rich, so is an untapped resource of revenue streams for FIFA and their corporate partners (see also: USA in 1994, Japan & South Korea in 2002) 2.) A make-good present from Blatter to Mohammed bin-Hammam after Blatter exposed MbH's corruption - because MbH had the temerity to challenge Blatter's position, so Blatter exposed his corruption to make the problem go away...but gave him a World Cup to keep him sweet, just in case he exposed Blatter's corruption in retaliation FIFA isn't one solid lump with "corruption" written on it, it's a web of many different aspects that need to be tackled, and from many different angles. And this is where The FA have got it wrong, they aren't approaching it from any angle at all, they're just throwing toys out of their pram - and keeping with the childish theme, they copy the work of the kid who actually bothered to do some work who sits next to them and doesn't expect to be caught out for it. And let me make one thing abundantly clear to you, since you just can't let it go: Rauball said he wanted the full report published and, if it wasn't, UEFA should boycott FIFA in an interview with Kicker. Kicker is published on Mondays and Thursdays, so the latest he could have suggested this was last Wednesday. Bernstein said he wanted the full report published or he would suggest UEFA boycott FIFA in an interview with the BBC that was posted on Monday, so the latest it could have been given was on Sunday. Please, tell me how I am "mistaken" in saying Rauball was not the first one to suggest the exact same thing?
FIFA have decided that they're going to ignore the protests of the lawyer that they got to investigate them and their various bidding processes. Their public statement that claimed that he said they were great, the bent bids were fine and that everyone else was a cheat didn't constitute a decision, so he can't appeal against it. Utterly shameless.
Y It really is about time that the major football playing nations got together and told Blatter to stick his, rotten to the core, organisation where the sun don't shine! And formed their own governing body. If all the major players could be brought on board, that would effectively leave filthy FIFA toothless.
It's the most brazen decision yet. I can't tell if they're more complacent than ever or desperate as they know they're under pressure and have nowhere else they can go with this other than out and out defiance to the whole business.
Platini spoke out against Blatter last week - which would mean more if he hadn't been neutered by Blatter a couple of years ago.
News is now surfacing that Nepalese migrants have died at a rate of one every two days in 2014 building the Qatar World Cup infrastructure. When is the world going to wake up and take action on this abhorrent behaviour?
I doubt this is anything new for Qatar, the issue for me is why on Earth we're hosting a World Cup in a country that allows near enough slave working rights, awful safety conditions, homophobic laws and blatant corruption.
Careful with facts like that: If there are 10,000 of them and their life expectancy is on average 50 more years then you'd expect 200 to die every year from natural causes. That's more than 1 every two days. Working on building sites in extreme heat would most likely increase that. You need to know much more about the data to draw any conclusions.
That;s not true. If human life expectancy is 80 years(lets just call it that for now) then it doesn't mean that 1/80th will die every year. If we go by your calculation then everyone will be dead just as you reach the average point. Even ignoring that, the average says nothing about the rate of deaths. Again, if you take 80 years as the average life expectancy, there's nothing in that statistic that gives you the information to assume the rate is steady. There are 2 potential extremes that would draw the same result, half the population dying at birth and half living to 160 and half dying at 79 and half at 81. Those extremes both have no rate of death during working age and whilst that's unrealistic, it's also unrealistic to say that manual laborers of working age have the same chance of dying each year as an 80 year old man.
I was simplifying, but I imagine the workforce of Nepalese immigrants would be quite evenly distributed over the age range 20-50 so my assumption that 50 years is their life expectancy is probably optimistic. Looking at in more detail, in the UK men in that range have about a 1 in 1000 chance of dying in a year so any group of about 180,000 workers would give a one every two days result. All I was trying to point out was that the statistic is meaningless unless you know a) the number of workers, b) their age distribution, c) the normal detah rate for Nepalese, and d) whether the number is all deaths, or deaths while working because of safety or other work-related factors.
Naturally occurring annual death rates at the very least should plot as the second half of the "bathtub" curve.
