FA Humiliation at FIFA

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

I see Blatter's masterstroke today, bearing in mind he needs the support of the 208 heads of national associations.

The World Cup venue will now not be chosen by the 24 ExCo members - but by the entire FIFA Congress!

After he's safely retired to count his money.

 

[El Presidente]

Okay. But Syed is a cock.

Agreed, but a table-tennis-tastic one

 

[Normal Rob]

Based on the amount of money generated for UEFA/FIFA funds? Don't think so. Time to hit them in the only place they understand or care about - their pockets.

and melt their website via their contact form page...

FIFA.com

 

[El Presidente]

Quite simply why don't we quit FIFA, we don't want to be part of such a corrupt organisation, especially when we hold a lot of cards in that we house the biggest league in terms of revenue and viewers in the world and are still one of the biggest draws at international level.

The World Cup managed quite happily without England in 1994, 1978 and 1974. We were not at the Euros in 2008 and it was a very enjoyable tournament from a fans' perspective.

More fans attended the WC from the USA last year than from England.

 

[Tooting Gull]

We have two choices here - we can

a) play the long game, make some friends around the world, do lots of altruistic things and seek to grow a power base

b) pull back from everything - no nice money making friendlies, investment projects in smaller countries etc

I dont think leaving FIFA is an option.

And for those yesterday who couldn't understand what the issues with FIFA had to do with is being one of 4 home nations then perhaps you should read the media outputs from todays sessions. the Senior Vice President questioning why the home nations get an automatic vice presidency between them, other nations asking why the home nations make up half of the rules committee and others asking why we have 4 votes at full sessions. They have been fed these lines by Blatter and his cronies for years so they now see the two as linked.

True. And the galling thing is, those 'privileges' come with no real clout. We haven't made any use of our automatic VP spot, and half the rules committee is meaningless. They are being used as a stick to beat us with, but there has been no benefit, or we have wasted any possible benefit.

If the FA is serious about a clean-up, they should accept those two things should be withdrawn. The four votes is more complicated, because it is tied up with participation as home countries, but that could come under pressure too.

But given the tone of today, if we couldn't have influence over 24 people, we've got no chance over 208 for a very long time. As Lord B said, it's all gone a bit Eurovision on us.

 

[Simster]

and change from within will never happen while there are 150 third world nations lined up against any changes to their payola.

Perhaps we have to ask why these tin pot nations line up behind the status quo.

I've just stumbled across this excellent article that goes some way to explaining why:

FIFA's controversial roots date back to 1966 World Cup - Tim Vickery - SI.com

In short, two or three absolutely shameful decisions made when an Englishman last ran FIFA.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

I see Blatter's masterstroke today, bearing in mind he needs the support of the 208 heads of national associations.

The World Cup venue will now not be chosen by the 24 ExCo members - but by the entire FIFA Congress! So now 208 people get their snout in the trough, and he sails through today. "I want to put more power in the hands of the Congress". And lunches, free holidays and cash bribes. Brilliant.

Exactly - now there's 54 bent African countries to win over rather than a handful. I would imagine it makes buying the world cup a lot easier. Are Djibouti or Laos going to be more interested in voting for the country that puts on the most efficient and fan-friendly tournament instead of who does something for them? Of course not, and who can blame them.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Plenty of time for him to release more info. He's not so fussed about the election, as his own hearing. He has been the name at the centre of every corruption story at FIFA for a couple of decades, so you can bet he's got a whole load of beans to spill should he choose to. Whereas, he's already said enough that the concerned parties such as the sponsors who are threatening to walk away will not accept him merely going quiet in exchange for the charges being dropped.

I was just thinking that the most he could hurt Blatter if he wanted to, was to try to get him not elected, but it's probably too late for that.

 

[The Large One]

Perhaps we have to ask why these tin pot nations line up behind the status quo.

I've just stumbled across this excellent article that goes some way to explaining why:

FIFA's controversial roots date back to 1966 World Cup - Tim Vickery - SI.com

In short, two or three absolutely shameful decisions made when an Englishman last ran FIFA.

Interesting article - I'd heard about the 1966 conspiracies before (did you know that the England v Portugal semi-final was supposed to be played at Goodison Park, until Rous intervened?), but for me misses the point.

The point (or one of the points) Vickery seems to be making is that the main reason these latest FIFA revelations cut so little ice with other footballing nations is because the English are perceived to have had a kind of historical attitude of football colonialism, looking down on others, setting the rules to suit themselves etc. Therefore, goes the subsequent thought, who are the English to complain?

However, my point is, does it matter who is complaining - as long as someone highlights this FIFA behaviour? And so what if it is the English? What does that change?

If, for example, the German FA can get its teeth into the story, maybe others well pay attention.

 

[Southern Toon]

10.55: Senior Fifa vice-president Julio Grondona of Argentina, 81 and an executive committee fixture for years, has taken the floor and launched a direct attack on England, accusing them and the media of peddling "lies".

He demanded that England "leave the Fifa family alone" and hinted that the privileged seat on Fifa's executive committee reserved for the Home Nations could be lost.

“We always have attacks from England which are mostly lies with the support of journalism which is more busy lying than telling the truth, this upsets and disturbs the Fifa family," he said.

"I felt it myself, that to present such a project as David Bernstein presented this is like shooting a penalty, because it cannot be always from the same place that the insults and problems come from. I don’t understand how this works I have been in this for so many years I see it at every congress.

“It looks like England is always complaining so please I say will you leave the Fifa family alone, and when you speak, speak with truth.”

And speaking to a German news agency he went further...

He describes the English as "pirates", said he asked the 2018 World Cup bid to hand back the Falklands before he would consider voting for them. Diplomatic incident ahoy...

"Yes, I voted for Qatar, because a vote for the US [who were beaten by Qatar in the race to host the 2022 finals] would be like a vote for England. And that is not possible," the Argentine said.

He described the English as "pirates" and said that he had never asked for anything for his vote. "But with the English bid I said: Let us be brief. If you give back the Falkland Islands, which belong to us, you will get my vote. They then became sad and left."

 

[Easy 10]

He described the English as "pirates" and said that he had never asked for anything for his vote. "But with the English bid I said: Let us be brief. If you give back the Falkland Islands, which belong to us, you will get my vote. They then became sad and left."

And there, in a nutshell, from the Senior Vice President of FIFA no less, lies the endemic problem.

Votes for hosting World Cups are not cast according to the merits, capabilities and suitability of the bidding nations, or the quality of their bids. They are cast according to political and personal agendas and prejudices (and backhanders of course, not that that'll ever be acknowledged).

Thats the SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT confirming that.

 

[The Large One]

So much for Blatter's attempts at keeping politics out of football.

It's neck deep in it.

 

[The Large One]

And there, in a nutshell, from the Senior Vice President of FIFA no less, lies the endemic problem.

Votes for hosting World Cups are not cast according to the merits, capabilities and suitability of the bidding nations, or the quality of their bids. They are cast according to political and personal agendas and prejudices (and backhanders of course, not that that'll ever be acknowledged).

Thats the SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT confirming that.

Quite. He has admitted his vote is biddable.

 

[Tooting Gull]

So...Grondona actually opened his mouth and said to us that we would only get his vote if we hand back the Falkland Islands. WTF. Is this getting too surreal for anyone else too? Don't FIFA ban countries who brings politics into football? This is too mad, and we're being portrayed as the villains daring to criticise Sepp and his lunatic mates.

 

[Triggaaar]

Quite simply why don't we quit FIFA, we don't want to be part of such a corrupt organisation, especially when we hold a lot of cards in that we house the biggest league in terms of revenue and viewers in the world and are still one of the biggest draws at international level.

Don't we need to be with FIFA to stay with UEFA? Either way, it's not worth leaving the World Cup over this, unless we get others to join us.

And speaking to a German news agency he went further...

He describes the English as "pirates", said he asked the 2018 World Cup bid to hand back the Falklands before he would consider voting for them. Diplomatic incident ahoy...

I'm glad he said this, it shows that everything he said before was about nothing more than the Falklands. So to whom are we supposed to return the Falklands? Argentina have never owned it.

 

[The Large One]

"A vote for the US is like a vote for England. And that is not possible..."

Um... Er...

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Quite. He has admitted his vote is biddable.

I read it as him trying to be "ironic" - maybe I'm being too generous.

 

[Simster]

Interesting article - I'd heard about the 1966 conspiracies before (did you know that the England v Portugal semi-final was supposed to be played at Goodison Park, until Rous intervened?), but for me misses the point.

The point (or one of the points) Vickery seems to be making is that the main reason these latest FIFA revelations cut so little ice with other footballing nations is because the English are perceived to have had a kind of historical attitude of football colonialism, looking down on others, setting the rules to suit themselves etc. Therefore, goes the subsequent thought, who are the English to complain?

However, my point is, does it matter who is complaining - as long as someone highlights this FIFA behaviour? And so what if it is the English? What does that change?

If, for example, the German FA can get its teeth into the story, maybe others well pay attention.

Oh I agree in principle, except that's not how the world works. It certainly DOES seem to matter who is doing the complaining.

I often wondered why the likes of Platini apparently "don't like the British/English". I always thought it was an ignorant xenophoic mantra that gets feebly trotted out whenever something fails to go our way and it turns out I was right, as this article highlights that maybe there is good reason for this, and that "Sir" Stanley Rous, an English former FIFA president, was in fact a total wanker and is directly responsible for the world's attitude to a complaining British FA and press.

 

[Tooting Gull]

The thing I find most staggering about that Grondona remark is that this is the first time we've heard about it.

Why would the FA not have said something a) at the time, since that made it clear the issue was not being decided on footballing/bid grounds or b) immediately after the vote.

In both cases it would paint him in a very bad light, maybe get him thrown out (yeah, ok that's dreaming a bit).

What else is there we don't know about?

 

[The Large One]

Oh I agree in principle, except that's not how the world works. It certainly DOES seem to matter who is doing the complaining.

It does. But because it's the English, it's a convenient excuse for FIFA to dismiss it. Handy that.

I often wondered why the likes of Platini apparently "don't like the British/English". I always thought it was an ignorant xenophoic mantra that gets feebly trotted out whenever something fails to go our way and it turns out I was right, as this article highlights that maybe there is good reason for this, and that "Sir" Stanley Rous, an English former FIFA president, was in fact a total wanker and is directly responsible for the world's attitude to a complaining British FA and press.

The problem goes back way before Stanley Rous, and I think Vickery is missing a trick here. The English were very put out when - of all people - the damned French launched a WORLD footballing body in 1904. That ought to have been the preserve of the English - to the 'originators of football' don't you know, and seeing as it was something that they were reluctant to instigate in the first place, they really didn't want to have anything to do with something they didn't create and couldn't control.