All Whites, Ferns, and other international teams

CHANGE OF RULING - away goals in extra-time

137 replies · 6,935 views
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
The IFAB (home nations boards and FIFA) has to sit down and get rid of extra-time rule with away goals because there is unbalanced bias involved.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
sanday wrote:
As long as this is the way it is for all play offs. I have no problem.
Perhaps FIFA could make it clearer in their world cup�regulations.


Of course it is. What, you think the FIFA World Cup qualifying regulations only apply to AW v Bahrain?
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
If you'd read some of the posts on here that is exactly what they think (not Sanday).

How's my driving? - Whine here

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
AllWhitebelievr wrote:
The IFAB (home nations boards and FIFA) has to sit down and get rid of extra-time rule with away goals because there is unbalanced bias involved.


What have the home nations got anything to do with this?
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Hard News wrote:
If you'd read some of the posts on here that is exactly what they think (not Sanday).


Meh, I've only been skim reading. This thread is so full of stoopid I thought I'd be compromising my already fragile sanity if I paid full attention.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
It does make one despair doesn't it El G? The number of people who have this distorted view that FIFA are out to get NZ is laughable. They seem to assume that FIFA can do anything, without ever reading the regulations or understanding that FIFA is made up of its members. As such, it as political and disparate an organisation as anything.
 
Anyway, I find it telling that UEFA experimented one season with not having the away goals rule count in extra time and then ditched it to go back to what they've always done.
 
Yes, it is imperfect. The whole away goals rule itself is imperfect - I'd rather see it dropped just like the Division Playoffs in England have done. In the old days, it went to a replay - go back further and goal difference wasn't even used!
 
These days, scheduling replays - particularly for internationals - is just not an option. Penalties are a horrible way to exit a tournament, so it's just about having a way of it being decided on the pitch without being forced to use penalties.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
What were the issues with golden goal that led to it being dropped?
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Teams were more worried about conceding a goal to which they wouldn't be able to respond than they were about going for the win. The perception was that it created a defensive approach for extra-time. Silver goal tried to address that, but was really just shorter normal extra-time with an option to extend.
 
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
SiNZ wrote:
It does make one despair doesn't it El G? The number of people who have this distorted view that FIFA are out to get NZ is laughable. They seem to assume that FIFA can do anything, without ever reading the regulations or understanding that FIFA is made up of its members. As such, it as political and disparate an organisation as anything.
 
 
for a start, a lot of the arguments are being based on the fact that Fifa are going against their own regulations:
 
'If the score is level after extra time penalty kicks will be taken to decide a winner...'
 
If it wasn't there  in black and white I wouldn't have a problem with it.
 
As for the view that Fifa is out to get New Zealand, well that's unlikely. However, I wouldn't place as much faith in the integrity of Fifa as you so clearly do. You might like to look into the shady dealings around Blatter's continued re-election. It is also interesting how Blatter seems to get his way  with regard to finals venues every time. For such a democartic organisation it does seem to be run somewhat like a personal fiefdom.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I was under the impression prior to the all this that away goals would count so i'm not overly upset.  I think that the response to Piney's request was obviously inadequate, and that has caused problems here, but there IS NO CONSPIRACY! 

A literal reading of the regs suggest that they do't cound in extra time, and this is something that they should clarify, but i think this needs repeating, - THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY!
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Spoil sport.
 
Or are you part of it?

"Phoenix till they lose"

Posting 97% bollox, 8% lies and 3.658% genuine opinion. 

Genuine opinion: FTFFA

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
el grapadura wrote:
AllWhitebelievr wrote:
The IFAB (home nations boards and FIFA) has to sit down and get rid of extra-time rule with away goals because there is unbalanced bias involved.


What have the home nations got anything to do with this?
 
IFAB oversees recommendations to the Laws of the Game. Anachronistic, but a fact.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
How do you know there isnt a conspiracy?

Im pretty sure way back in 1982, it wasnt just a  bad ref.




Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
stop making youself look silly.  Take your conspiracies to your blog.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Steptoe wrote:
el grapadura wrote:
AllWhitebelievr wrote:
The IFAB (home nations boards and FIFA) has to sit down and get rid of extra-time rule with away goals because there is unbalanced bias involved.


What have the home nations got anything to do with this?
 
IFAB oversees recommendations to the Laws of the Game. Anachronistic, but a fact.
 
The use of away goals and their extra-time relevance is not dictated by the Laws of the Game. The LotG merely state that they are an acceptable method of resolving a tied match.
 
Individual tournaments choose themselves whether or not to employ them. Some tournaments don't do extra time, some don't do away goals, some do both. Of those that do both, some classify extra time goals as part of the away goal rule, some don't. The IFAB and FIFA have no say on that.
 
The World Cup Organising Committee, one of the 20-odd sub-commitees, set the tournament regulations for the World Cup.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
BlattersBalls wrote:
SiNZ wrote:
It does make one despair doesn't it El G? The number of people who have this distorted view that FIFA are out to get NZ is laughable. They seem to assume that FIFA can do anything, without ever reading the regulations or understanding that FIFA is made up of its members. As such, it as political and disparate an organisation as anything.
 
 
for a start, a lot of the arguments are being based on the fact that Fifa are going against their own regulations:
 
'If the score is level after extra time penalty kicks will be taken to decide a winner...'
 
If it wasn't there  in black and white I wouldn't have a problem with it.
 
As for the view that Fifa is out to get New Zealand, well that's unlikely. However, I wouldn't place as much faith in the integrity of Fifa as you so clearly do. You might like to look into the shady dealings around Blatter's continued re-election. It is also interesting how Blatter seems to get his way  with regard to finals venues every time. For such a democartic organisation it does seem to be run somewhat like a personal fiefdom.
 
Put the extract back in with the rest of the regulation and it's not so black and white. It's ambiguous and as such, very badly expressed.
 
The FIFA WC Committee really need to employ the UEFA regulations scribe. They state clearly, in both guises of the rule, whether away goals in extra time count as double or not.
 
However, UEFA used to be just as ambiguous as FIFA's - with the rule actually being the same. I suspect, but don't actually know, that UEFA had a situation where it made a difference and arguments ensued as to the two ways of interpreting the clumsy phrasing!
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Seems people have got their backs up because of that original correspondence from FIFA saying one thing and then another statement saying the other.
 
Sinz you have explained it the best, wasn't need for the question to be answered before because Golden/Silver goal existed.
 
But like Marius says in his blog it is a horrendously worded piece of regulation, wouldn't be a difficult argument to make in a court that it means the other thing.
 
We can't let it bother us though, lets just win it in normal time! Because I don't think I could handle penalties

www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
SiNZ wrote:
Teams were more worried about conceding a goal to which they wouldn't be able to respond than they were about going for the win. The perception was that it created a defensive approach for extra-time. Silver goal tried to address that, but was really just shorter normal extra-time with an option to extend.
 
 
Yeah interestingly,thats what we would do in extra time...try not to concede as it counts double,so its prety interesting to have made this the interpretation of the rule if that was their aim (to not have teams only worried about conceding.)
 
I think people are crying foul because it is entirely possible that FIFA fluffed their own law,since their hasnt been a single instance of this happening since it was changed from golden/silver goal. They certainly have the motive and the means to do it. However it is most definetly a bit of an outrageous conspiracy theory,but one that is possible. People have obviously read FIFAs (reasonably clear) ruling that it did not count in extra time,then saw a different interpretation of the wording,and cried foul.
 
Im not saying its true or that i believe it,im just saying its possible.
 
EDIT: The wording needs to be changed,as well as the law. That football manager wording was absolutely perfect and left no room for different interpretations. remove away goals counting in extra time and make the law read more clearly,please FIFA!
Tegal2009-10-29 15:39:32

Allegedly

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Thing is, for there to be a conspiracy theory you have to believe it's been done to benefit someone who otherwise wouldn't. Does anyone really believe that if this was a stitch-up that the French (and UEFA head Michel Platini) wouldn't be complaining?! After all, they were drawn to play the second leg of their tie at home too.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Fifa have already stitched up the European qualifying, with the seedings. That is totally disgusting, and based on what exactly? Fifa's desperate need to have C. Ron rolling around and bringing the game into disrepute come June?

 C. Ron equates to another few million Euros in the bank, so Fifa rig the qualifiers. I'm pretty sure this IS a new  Fifa regulation based soley on their desperate need to have France and Portugal in S.A.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Paranoia much?
 
The playoffs were seeded for previous WCs, so anyone suprised at them doing it again is obviously new to following football. I would prefer an open draw, but why would they change it for 2010?
 
By the way, just how does Ronaldo being at the WC equate to FIFA making a few millions? I can't see where that money is coming from. What am I missing?
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
2ndBest wrote:
stop making youself look silly.  Take your conspiracies to your blog.
 
Brett Dales's blog site needs some serious editing
 
 
Potentially good topics let down by lack of fact check and spelling eras
Salmon072009-10-29 17:10:22

Salmon swim upstream

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
SiNZ wrote:
Steptoe wrote:
el grapadura wrote:
AllWhitebelievr wrote:
The IFAB (home nations boards and FIFA) has to sit down and get rid of extra-time rule with away goals because there is unbalanced bias involved.
What have the home nations got anything to do with this?

�

IFAB oversees recommendations to the Laws of the Game. Anachronistic, but a fact.

�



The use of away goals and their extra-time relevance is not dictated by the Laws of the Game. The LotG merely state that they are an acceptable method of resolving a tied match.

�

Individual tournaments choose themselves whether or not to employ them. Some tournaments don't do extra time, some don't do away goals, some do both. Of those that do both, some classify extra time goals as part of the away goal rule, some don't. The IFAB and FIFA have no say on that.

�

The World Cup Organising Committee, one of the 20-odd sub-commitees,�set the tournament regulations for the World Cup.


Actually if they wanted extra-time and away goals to be part of the LotG, they can. I am think that when they did the amendment for the Golden Goal and Silver Goal, IFAB did discussed at length about before they introduced it. And if they decide to go for it, then FIFA and any sub-committee or official tournament organisers has to complied with the law change. Golden Goal and Silver Goal was the result of the IFAB not FIFA. It lasted for two years before IFAB meets again. Hence why Golden Goal and Silver Goal had their two years under the sun.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
SiNZ wrote:
BlattersBalls wrote:
SiNZ wrote:
It does make one despair doesn't it El G? The number of people who have this distorted view that FIFA are out to get NZ is laughable. They seem to assume that FIFA can do anything, without ever reading the regulations or understanding that FIFA is made up of its members. As such, it as political and disparate an organisation as anything.
 
 
for a start, a lot of the arguments are being based on the fact that Fifa are going against their own regulations:
 
'If the score is level after extra time penalty kicks will be taken to decide a winner...'
 
If it wasn't there  in black and white I wouldn't have a problem with it.
 
...
 
Put the extract back in with the rest of the regulation and it's not so black and white. It's ambiguous and as such, very badly expressed.
 
The FIFA WC Committee really need to employ the UEFA regulations scribe. They state clearly, in both guises of the rule, whether away goals in extra time count as double or not.
 
However, UEFA used to be just as ambiguous as FIFA's - with the rule actually being the same. I suspect, but don't actually know, that UEFA had a situation where it made a difference and arguments ensued as to the two ways of interpreting the clumsy phrasing!
 
As there has been no change to the WC Regs from 2006, then there shouldn't be talk of conspiracy re the present WC Regs. Complacency, yes, but not conspiracy. Complacency for leaving such a tortuously worded clause in the Regs.
 
A minefield for lawyers, but FIFA is above the law, by decree. Nevertheless, a logical interpretation of
"If the same number of goals is scored away or both matches end without any goals being scored, extra time of two periods of 15 minutes each will be played"
 
is that a match in the context of this Regulation consists of 90 minutes playing time. Apply that definition to the previous sentence in the Regs.
 
"If both teams score the same number of goals over the two matches, the goals scored away will be counted as double."
 
That is, the away goal criteria, as written, applies to the "matches", i.e. to be applied as a tie-breaker only at the end of 90 minutes playing time in the second leg.
Based on this, the logic of the remainder of the Reg is that away goals scored in extra time should not count as double.
 
Now, as a result of FIFA's clarification, we all know that the clause should not be interpreted logically.
 
So let's make sure we get the job done in 90 minutes on Nov 14th. If we don't, at least we now all know what rules the referee will apply regarding extra-time goals
 
 
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
AllWhitebelievr wrote:

Actually if they wanted extra-time and away goals to be part of the LotG, they can. I am think that when they did the amendment for the Golden Goal and Silver Goal, IFAB did discussed at length about before they introduced it. And if they decide to go for it, then FIFA and any sub-committee or official tournament organisers has to complied with the law change. Golden Goal and Silver Goal was the result of the IFAB not FIFA. It lasted for two years before IFAB meets again. Hence why Golden Goal and Silver Goal had their two years under the sun.
 
I can't see FIFA ever putting them into the LotG beyond what they do now i.e. they are an acceptable method of resolving ties. Can you seriously see FIFA mandating that extra-time an away goals must be used? Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by making them part of the LotG?
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
SiNZ wrote:
Paranoia much?
 
The playoffs were seeded for previous WCs, so anyone suprised at them doing it again is obviously new to following football. I would prefer an open draw, but why would they change it for 2010?
 
By the way, just how does Ronaldo being at the WC equate to FIFA making a few millions? I can't see where that money is coming from. What am I missing?
 
Perhaps you could try to be a little less condescending.
For the 2006 World Cup the Euorpean play-offs were seeded but it was done by a different process.  It appears that once again Fifa has not been clear about it's processes.
 
Refer to the following articles which suggest that Fifa's decision to seed was indeed last minute.
 
 
 
 
And now for my own condescending rant:
 
You must be naive, or simply not comprehend basic economic principles if  you can't understand how the world's most famous footballer not being at the World Cup will cost Fifa big- time. Shirt sales, product endorsements, advertising revenue,  DVD's.......Without C Ron the World Cup is a less marketable product, and Fifa is well aware of this.
 
And no,  it is not being paranoid, it is healthy skepticism and an unwillingness to accept that every thing Fifa does is in the best interests of the game.
BlattersBalls2009-10-29 20:45:26
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
BlattersBalls wrote:
SiNZ wrote:
Paranoia much?
 
The playoffs were seeded for previous WCs, so anyone suprised at them doing it again is obviously new to following football. I would prefer an open draw, but why would they change it for 2010?
 
By the way, just how does Ronaldo being at the WC equate to FIFA making a few millions? I can't see where that money is coming from. What am I missing?
 
Before launching into such a condescending solilioquay you should get your facts straight. Refer to this article:
 
 
For the 2006 World Cup the Euorpean play-offs were seeded but it was done by a different process. The 2010 format is different and clearly favours Portugal and France. Another example of Fifa making policy on the hoof for it's own ends.
 
 
And you must be naive, or simply not comprehend basic economic principles if  you can't understand how the world's most famous footballer not being at the World Cup will cost Fifa big- time. Shirt sales, product endorsements, advertising revenue,  DVD's.......Without C Ron the World Cup is a less marketable product, and Fifa is well aware of this.
 
And no,  it is not being paranoid, it is healthy skepticism and an unwillingness to accept that every thing Fifa does is in the best interests of the game.
 
The seeding of the 2006 European playoffs was made using the FIFA rankings. The seeding of the 2010 European playoffs was made using the FIFA rankings. Identical approach. Identical.
 
On one hand, you say the away goals thing is a conspiracy - yet it disadvantages the French just as it does us. Then we have the seeding of the playoffs using the rankings being a conspiracy to favour Portugal and France. So are France being conspired for or against? Make up your mind!
 
And you think FIFA is selling replica shirts at the World Cup? And that TV rights are depending on Portugal's presence? Don't be silly.
 
Healthy skepticism is one thing - all good. Seeing hidden conspiracies and claiming suprising changes when 2010 is being done exactly the same as 2006 doesn't sound healthy!
SiNZ2009-10-29 20:36:31
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
SiNZ wrote:
BlattersBalls wrote:
SiNZ wrote:
Paranoia much?
 
The playoffs were seeded for previous WCs, so anyone suprised at them doing it again is obviously new to following football. I would prefer an open draw, but why would they change it for 2010?
 
By the way, just how does Ronaldo being at the WC equate to FIFA making a few millions? I can't see where that money is coming from. What am I missing?
 
Before launching into such a condescending solilioquay you should get your facts straight. Refer to this article:
 
 
For the 2006 World Cup the Euorpean play-offs were seeded but it was done by a different process. The 2010 format is different and clearly favours Portugal and France. Another example of Fifa making policy on the hoof for it's own ends.
 
 
And you must be naive, or simply not comprehend basic economic principles if  you can't understand how the world's most famous footballer not being at the World Cup will cost Fifa big- time. Shirt sales, product endorsements, advertising revenue,  DVD's.......Without C Ron the World Cup is a less marketable product, and Fifa is well aware of this.
 
And no,  it is not being paranoid, it is healthy skepticism and an unwillingness to accept that every thing Fifa does is in the best interests of the game.
 
The seeding of the 2006 European playoffs was made using the FIFA rankings. The seeding of the 2010 European playoffs was made using the FIFA rankings. Identical approach. Identical.
 
On one hand, you say the away goals thing is a conspiracy - yet it disadvantages the French just as it does us. Then we have the seeding of the playoffs using the rankings being a conspiracy to favour Portugal and France. So are France being conspired for or against? Make up your mind!
 
And you think FIFA is selling replica shirts at the World Cup? And that TV rights are depending on Portugal's presence? Don't be silly.
 
Healthy skepticism is one thing - all good. Seeing hidden conspiracies and claiming suprising changes when 2010 is being done exactly the same as 2006 doesn't sound healthy!
 
Again, I will refer you to the above articles which suggest that Fifa made a late announcement. Can you categorically tell me that Fifa didn't intend to have an open draw? Just because  they seeded in 2006 doesn't necessarily follow that they would for 2010- things can change. From what I have read it appears that an open draw was going to happen until just a few weeks ago.
 
And your argument gains nothing by calling people silly.
 
As for the C. Ron thing, If you can't acknowledge that  the brand and Fifa would be harmed by his absence, there isn't much else to say.
 
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
there is so much stoopid in this thread I'm very tempted to shut it down.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Thats your opinion though 2ndbest. Just because you think its stupid doesnt mean you should shut it down
 
(again,not saying i agree with it,i just feel people should be allowed to discuss)

Allegedly

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Tempted being the operative word
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
BlattersBalls wrote:
Oh, and here's another one.
 
 
note the date
 
 
To continue from above.... FIFA did not use an open draw last time. They used the exact same process in 2010 as 2006. They gave no indication that the draw would be open for 2010. Neither of the links you provided say otherwise. Some people assumed they would be open for the first time. Why? Who knows? Personally, I think there is a lot of mock outrage at a "change" when there was no change. They did exactly the same thing that they did for 2006. Waited until just before the draw and then declared the FIFA rankings would be used.
 
Like I said, I would have preferred an open draw... but I saw nothing to indicate that FIFA would introduce that for the first time for 2010 so can't pretend to think it's a conspiracy when normal procedure applied.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
BlattersBalls wrote:
 
And your argument gains nothing by calling people silly.
 
As for the C. Ron thing, If you can't acknowledge that  the brand and Fifa would be harmed by his absence, there isn't much else to say.
 
 
Would the WC be less "glamorous"? Sure. Does that influence the money that *FIFA* make? No, not in any significant way.
 
I don't disagree that it would certainly reduce the money that the Portuguese FA makes on their replica shirt sales. Not that  FIFA would or should care about that.
 
Examine the revenue channels that come to *FIFA* and then see how many of those would be significantly impacted by the absence of one team and one of the best players in the world... not that big a deal.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Blatter 29/09/09
 
''We have decided on seeding the teams into two groups of four, taking the FIFA world rankings into account, with the top four in one pot and the others in another pot,"
 
You have to admit that the language he uses suggests that the decision has been made only recently. Presumably an 'announcement' would not be required if it was common knowledge and set out in an official document. One cannot be condemed for skepticism around such nebulous machinations.
 
And my final word on the matter is,  that the 2006 qualifyers differed greatly as they made allowances for the 2 best runners up to qualify automatically. The 2010 process IS therefore different, and so I would necessarily expect  or assume ( as you have) that the subsequnt play-offs would be structured in the same way.
BlattersBalls2009-10-29 21:34:17
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Mind you,this has gone way off topic.

Allegedly

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Examine the revenue channels that come to *FIFA* and then see how many of those would be significantly impacted by the absence of one team and one of the best players in the world... not that big a deal.''
 
Bosnia-Herzegovina and Slovenia going to the World Cup, while France and Portugal stay at home, not a big deal? Yeah right.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
BlattersBalls wrote:
Blatter 29/09/09
 
''We have decided on seeding the teams into two groups of four, taking the FIFA world rankings into account, with the top four in one pot and the others in another pot,"
 
You have to admit that the language he uses suggests that the decision has been made only recently. Presumably an 'announcement' would not be required if it was common knowledge and set out in an official document. One cannot be condemed for skepticism around such nebulous machinations.
 
And my final word on the matter is,  that the 2006 qualifyers differed greatly as they made allowances for the 2 best runners up to qualify automatically. The 2010 process IS therefore different, and so I would necessarily expect  or assume ( as you have) that the subsequnt play-offs would be structured in the same way.
 
They made the exact same announcement in 2006. That's just the way they word it. You're reading things that just aren't there. You will find that there be a similar "announcement" for every such decision that is not pre-written into the regulations.
 
I will agree with you that it looks dodgy that they don't write it into the regulations from the off... but, and here's the reason, the regs do not cover the individual confederation qualifying formats. I think they should be expanded to do so. It would save people from leaping to conclusions, but the regs never have yet.
 
You could justifiably argue FIFA are giving themselves the option to change their mind, but in that case it looks even more dodgy if they do change from previous tournaments.
 
By the way, that change in UEFA qualifying between 2006 and 2010 was for two reasons: Germany had to qualify this time, not being hosts. And Montenegro entered for the first time. The change is cosmetic with regards to the approach and was needed to accommodate the two additional teams.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
sinz,im quite sure the quality of sides at the world cup would greatly affect its revenue streams for it through marketing rights etc.
 

More than

90% of FIFA�s total revenue comes from

the sale of rights relating to the

FIFA World Cup�.
 
Is not impossible that they would do these things. But yeah...not a fan of the conspiracy myself.
Tegal2009-10-29 21:49:49

Allegedly

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
BlattersBalls wrote:
Examine the revenue channels that come to *FIFA* and then see how many of those would be significantly impacted by the absence of one team and one of the best players in the world... not that big a deal.''
 
Bosnia-Herzegovina and Slovenia going to the World Cup, while France and Portugal stay at home, not a big deal? Yeah right.
 
So which of FIFA's revenue channels are significantly reduced by that scenario?
 
Edit: Tegal, question for you too - I'm honestly trying to think of one significant channel to be an issue that can be affected this close to the final tournament.
SiNZ2009-10-29 21:52:18
Permalink Permalink