In principle that sounds fantastic, but the reason it wouldn't work is because you would spend forever trying to get agreement on anything that incorporates cooperation amongst the confederation.
Plus you can only devolve power so much anyway....there needs to be central coordination otherwise everyone is pulling in different directions....and you get nothing acheived.
There's no evidence either of your points is factual. These are the typical reasons given for avoiding representation. In truth diversification to the national level would only be slightly better as you'd still have crooks in charge and the more influential mobsters would rule the roost and ultimately drive the decision making process. But it would still be a step back towards decency albeit with a long way to travel. It would be a brake in the worst case. Probably something like the hateful UN stitch up where 200 nations are shoehorned into a decision making process governed by an elite few. And yet the UN still manages to kick its wars off on time, despite huge resistance from backbench nations that bang on about preserving the peace and the actual aims of the organisation. But at least these few democratic pretenders that have hijacked the floor don't officially dare declare themselves above it, the pretence has to be maintained. FIFA has reached the stage where it doesn't bother concealing its corruption. £3billion, £5billion, £10billion to host a football tournament? That could be simplified for a start and the costs slashed. If regional bodies had to foot the bill, instead of nations being ripped off via their "democratic" parliaments (and we don't even bother with that pretence now Qatar has joined the club), you'd soon see costs tumble. And with falling costs comes a decline in corruption by default, both in terms of incentive and because there just wouldn't be the cash to go around. At very least the bribes would be smaller.Originally Posted by Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie
How much would it really cost the UK (or any other primary footballing nation) to host a World Cup? The stadiums are already in place. So save hundreds of millions right there. The transport networks - in place. Saves potentially billions. These nations handle multiple matches all over the country twice a week, so how much more planning *really* has to go into it? The sponsors would still queue to pay, the TV companies would be on-board. In fact, is it conceivable to suggest it would cost a grand total of zero pounds to host the tournament if all the fat construction contracts and other dodgy deals were wiped away? One event every 4 years? The TV companies could save up, McDonalds could chuck into a piggy bank for 208 weeks. You watch how quickly this approach would appeal for the English football authorities if they were footing the bill, with the costs of the individual teams being met by their own football national authorities.
The first act of a council could be to allocate the next 20 World Cups based on existing facilities and fan bases. Easy really. Not a government entity in sight, in fact didn't Cameron just the other day say he didn't want to get involved in the ticket disputes because it was up to the game to sort it out internally? It only becomes difficult or in need of a vast bureaucracy when you need to find as many avenues for corruption as possible. Government works the same way.
Für eure Sicherheit
But this council would still be responsible for the decision of who the world cups go to etc
I have actually no problem with world cups going to the developing world as long as there is the oversight to stop the governing body acting as parasites, proof that the venues being constructed would be used after the tournaments and wouldn't be giant white elephants and that the people who live in the country are actually better off as a result....(subsidy for improved infrastructure etc).
The difference is they should be the exception and as you say it would be preferable to award it to countries where the infrastructure is already in place.
Either that or scrap the competition and turn it into an ongoing intercontinental league.
I have no problems ideologically with the tournament going to developing nations, but practically the people of those nations (often already living on the poverty line) have to pick up the bill, either directly or as an opportunity cost. So it's usually an anti-humanitarian act to "grace" these nations with the debts associated with a major sporting (commercial) event. Even at the most basic level there is precedent for disallowing the application of nations that can't support a tournament with existing infrastructure, thus removing the trough from the pigs rather than attempting the impossible task of controlling the pigs. If Arsenal decided to move down the road to a school pitch they'd be thrown out of the Premier League for failing to meet a minimum standard. Unfortunately this is then used to force nations like South Africa into blowing billions rather than cut to the chase and award the tournament to a nation with the required facilities. The World Cup is more about construction contracts than football. Does anyone think that will change if the existing den of thieves is left in place with the only change being a different set of thieves appointed to the leadership?
They are devious, nasty bastards too. Even suggesting the people of a developed nation avoid getting skinned sees you accused of racism by the greedy pigs who are determined to exploit that nation. Don't want the people of an African country to lose out of water treatment plants? Racism. Want to see the people swap 4 weeks for 40 years of crushing debt? That's progressive - provided you don't actually let too many of those brownies in to watch the games.
Für eure Sicherheit
Edin Dzeko with possibly the worst miss of all time
vid : https://twitter.com/TrustyTransfers/...02065902751744
This adds to my "footballers are rubbish" thesis.
He must have been watching Giroud amirite haha lol jk jk
NOTE: The location of this post has been moved and the thread title (which was previously Wenger is Leaving) has been manipulated by a notorious pro-Wenger moderator. What was previously a message that contained no profanity and made a comment on a real life event has now been manipulated by a deliberately provocative title. An old and crude propaganda and censorship technique.
Für eure Sicherheit
Infantino ahead after first round of voting
No candidate anywhere near the number required, onto second round
At least they've limited the Royal term to 4 years now. Whether that means more corruption because they'll have to cash in faster we'll have to wait and see.
Für eure Sicherheit
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
