UEFA includes many smaller nations who are behind the proposed boycott
ballane wrote:
I just hope UEFA dosnt forget about the smaller nations in the World because they often do. Personally like their statement no chance of HIM misunderstanding their intent.
UEFA doesnt care about the smaller non UEFA nations, they are only interested in themselves.
Queenslander 3x a year.
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by
Concaf have also come out saying they won't be a part of it.
I wonder if we will what from the OFC
I wonder if we will what from the OFC
I have an amazing ability to find my way out of mazes. I'm pathological.
Permalink
Permalink
ballane wrote:
I just hope UEFA dosnt forget about the smaller nations in the World because they often do. Personally like their statement no chance of HIM misunderstanding their intent.
Given how much they look down upon AFCON, AFC Cup, OFC Nations Cup or any non-European football as a waste of time, the rhetoric that football belongs to them, and the general disdain of any of the old colonies' opinions, I wouldn't have high expectations that UEFA running the show would benefit anyone but them.
This is the opportunity for them to seize power - and like the Super League led the way for the Champions' League reforms which moved power further towards the super clubs and away from UEFA's smaller countries - any changes will benefit the big countries much more.
Fans of the OFC Pro League and the direct OFC spot in the WC may have reason to sweat if UEFA took reigns.
This is the opportunity for them to seize power - and like the Super League led the way for the Champions' League reforms which moved power further towards the super clubs and away from UEFA's smaller countries - any changes will benefit the big countries much more.
Fans of the OFC Pro League and the direct OFC spot in the WC may have reason to sweat if UEFA took reigns.
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by
theprof wrote:ballane wrote:UEFA doesnt care about the smaller non UEFA nations, they are only interested in themselves.
I just hope UEFA dosnt forget about the smaller nations in the World because they often do. Personally like their statement no chance of HIM misunderstanding their intent.
Yeah you may be right. But do you really think Infantino cares about them? He’s literally bribing them for votes. He knows a lot of smaller nations lean heavily on FIFA handouts and takes advantage of that to garner support to keep himself in power. The man is a crook.
Three for me, and two for them.
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by
A symbiotic relationship. Infantino is good for smaller nations like us, and we with our votes are good for him
UEFA are not our friends. This stoush between them and FIFA has been brewing for awhile
Yes you imagine Infantino will have to back down. But who knows what talks are happening behind the scenes. UEFA’s reaction is entirely predictable, so if FIFA are smart they would have planned for this
No response I have yet seen from CONEMBOL
UEFA are not our friends. This stoush between them and FIFA has been brewing for awhile
Yes you imagine Infantino will have to back down. But who knows what talks are happening behind the scenes. UEFA’s reaction is entirely predictable, so if FIFA are smart they would have planned for this
No response I have yet seen from CONEMBOL
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by
coochiee wrote:
A symbiotic relationship. Infantino is good for smaller nations like us, and we with our votes are good for him
UEFA are not our friends. This stoush between them and FIFA has been brewing for awhile
Yes you imagine Infantino will have to back down. But who knows what talks are happening behind the scenes. UEFA’s reaction is entirely predictable, so if FIFA are smart they would have planned for this
No response I have yet seen from CONEMBOL
I don't believe privatising the World Cup is good for smaller nations like us.
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by
From a completely selfish aspect any bid to make more £€$ out of the WC, is more likely better for us than the opposite
A bigger WC with more teams, we qualify more often if not always
Biennial WCs we get our AWs playing meaningful games worth watching more frequently
And being there more often we get more of those $14M FIFA handouts to invest in football in NZ. Without the 2010 and now 2026 dosh NZF would have had to cut funding everywhere
Again that’s from a purely selfish aspect of enjoying watching the AWs playing meaningful games at WCs
A bigger WC with more teams, we qualify more often if not always
Biennial WCs we get our AWs playing meaningful games worth watching more frequently
And being there more often we get more of those $14M FIFA handouts to invest in football in NZ. Without the 2010 and now 2026 dosh NZF would have had to cut funding everywhere
Again that’s from a purely selfish aspect of enjoying watching the AWs playing meaningful games at WCs
Permalink
Permalink
A biennial World Cup would probably be the end (or just about) of the All Whites playing in New Zealand. They struggle enough to make it home as it is.
More money is not necessarily a good thing. It could be helpful, but the string attached to it will cause far more issues than the money will ever solve.
More money is not necessarily a good thing. It could be helpful, but the string attached to it will cause far more issues than the money will ever solve.
Permalink
Permalink
The World Cup has been getting bigger with more teams without it being privatised. That can happen without this proposal.
I would rather see the AWs play in one proper World Cup every four years than watered down biennial World Cups with heck knows what rules in future. Maybe they have bigger goals so there is more scoring. Rule changes will have even less integrity than they do now and will be made more and more in favour of the biggest teams that advertisers want to see progress.
I would rather see the AWs play in one proper World Cup every four years than watered down biennial World Cups with heck knows what rules in future. Maybe they have bigger goals so there is more scoring. Rule changes will have even less integrity than they do now and will be made more and more in favour of the biggest teams that advertisers want to see progress.
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by
carlind wrote:ballane wrote:Given how much they look down upon AFCON, AFC Cup, OFC Nations Cup or any non-European football as a waste of time, the rhetoric that football belongs to them, and the general disdain of any of the old colonies' opinions, I wouldn't have high expectations that UEFA running the show would benefit anyone but them.
I just hope UEFA dosnt forget about the smaller nations in the World because they often do. Personally like their statement no chance of HIM misunderstanding their intent.
This is the opportunity for them to seize power - and like the Super League led the way for the Champions' League reforms which moved power further towards the super clubs and away from UEFA's smaller countries - any changes will benefit the big countries much more.
Fans of the OFC Pro League and the direct OFC spot in the WC may have reason to sweat if UEFA took reigns.
Great example!
Power and wealth used their power and wealth to influence an entity to the benefit of power and wealth, AND you want to add more of that to running of fifa?!
Power and wealth used their power and wealth to influence an entity to the benefit of power and wealth, AND you want to add more of that to running of fifa?!
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by
Dang so UEFA really started the boycott, honestly didn't think it would happen so soon or so unanimously. That's basically gotta be the end of Infantino's plans in that case, they'd be lucky to get half the original $20B they were looking for without European nations involved, and that's not even counting the fact that two of the main hosts next WC (Spain and Portugal) won't be hosting anymore, which is gonna cause so many issues.
Permalink
Permalink
it may well be a case of "better the devil you know". We al know Ifantino and co are corooks, but at least the OFc has been given some attention under their watch. If the rick kids in Europe get control of FIFA or create some rebel union then who knows what seed money filters down to us, if at al?
Queenslander 3x a year.
Permalink
Permalink
Bullion wrote:carlind wrote:Great example!ballane wrote:Given how much they look down upon AFCON, AFC Cup, OFC Nations Cup or any non-European football as a waste of time, the rhetoric that football belongs to them, and the general disdain of any of the old colonies' opinions, I wouldn't have high expectations that UEFA running the show would benefit anyone but them.
I just hope UEFA dosnt forget about the smaller nations in the World because they often do. Personally like their statement no chance of HIM misunderstanding their intent.
This is the opportunity for them to seize power - and like the Super League led the way for the Champions' League reforms which moved power further towards the super clubs and away from UEFA's smaller countries - any changes will benefit the big countries much more.
Fans of the OFC Pro League and the direct OFC spot in the WC may have reason to sweat if UEFA took reigns.
Power and wealth used their power and wealth to influence an entity to the benefit of power and wealth, AND you want to add more of that to running of fifa?!
Theprof liking my post and your comments on this issues, I think you misunderstand what I'm saying.
Adding private wealth that will want their investment to be protected and grow will, like the wealthy super clubs, want to use their wealth to influence fifa to the benefit of their wealth.
Edit: And to counter Carlind's point about UEFA bending to the will of the super clubs, the super clubs didn't completely get their way and UEFA were pretty strong in pushing back:
"UEFA has been forced to abandon its attempt to ban Super League clubs Barcelona, Juventus and Real Madrid from the Champions League due to court action over the governing body’s attempt to punish the rebellion."
"The European Union’s top court has ruled that UEFA and FIFA broke EU law in blocking the formation of a rival Super League competition.
...
In early 2021, 12 of Europe’s biggest clubs announced they had signed up to the planned Super League, triggering a furious backlash from fans and a stark warning from UEFA that clubs and players who took part would be barred from competitions like the World Cup.
Within 48 hours, nine of the 12 rebel clubs – including six from the English Premier League – backed down and the project collapsed, leaving promoters A22 Sports Management to launch a legal challenge through the Spanish courts, which referred the question to the ECJ.
In response to the Super League threat, UEFA launched a major reform of the Champions League starting in 2024, with 36 teams involved instead of 32. The clubs will play in a single league competition, which will replace the current group stage, guaranteeing at least eight matches for each team."
So, there was some concession to wealth and power but it could have been worse. Imagine if UEFA had private investors.
Adding private wealth that will want their investment to be protected and grow will, like the wealthy super clubs, want to use their wealth to influence fifa to the benefit of their wealth.
Edit: And to counter Carlind's point about UEFA bending to the will of the super clubs, the super clubs didn't completely get their way and UEFA were pretty strong in pushing back:
"UEFA has been forced to abandon its attempt to ban Super League clubs Barcelona, Juventus and Real Madrid from the Champions League due to court action over the governing body’s attempt to punish the rebellion."
"The European Union’s top court has ruled that UEFA and FIFA broke EU law in blocking the formation of a rival Super League competition.
...
In early 2021, 12 of Europe’s biggest clubs announced they had signed up to the planned Super League, triggering a furious backlash from fans and a stark warning from UEFA that clubs and players who took part would be barred from competitions like the World Cup.
Within 48 hours, nine of the 12 rebel clubs – including six from the English Premier League – backed down and the project collapsed, leaving promoters A22 Sports Management to launch a legal challenge through the Spanish courts, which referred the question to the ECJ.
In response to the Super League threat, UEFA launched a major reform of the Champions League starting in 2024, with 36 teams involved instead of 32. The clubs will play in a single league competition, which will replace the current group stage, guaranteeing at least eight matches for each team."
So, there was some concession to wealth and power but it could have been worse. Imagine if UEFA had private investors.
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by
Southernix wrote:
A biennial World Cup would probably be the end (or just about) of the All Whites playing in New Zealand. They struggle enough to make it home as it is.
More money is not necessarily a good thing. It could be helpful, but the string attached to it will cause far more issues than the money will ever solve.
I'd say it likely means the opposite. It costs NZF money to bring teams (mens & womens) to NZ.
$14M every 2 years rather than 4 years, should mean more cash to bring more teams to Aotearoa.
There presumably would also have to be biennial OFC WC qualifying with games at home. Though that might have to take the form of WC qualifying tourneys like the age group stuff is.
$14M every 2 years rather than 4 years, should mean more cash to bring more teams to Aotearoa.
There presumably would also have to be biennial OFC WC qualifying with games at home. Though that might have to take the form of WC qualifying tourneys like the age group stuff is.
Permalink
Permalink
coochiee wrote:Southernix wrote:I'd say it likely means the opposite. It costs NZF money to bring teams (mens & womens) to NZ.
A biennial World Cup would probably be the end (or just about) of the All Whites playing in New Zealand. They struggle enough to make it home as it is.
More money is not necessarily a good thing. It could be helpful, but the string attached to it will cause far more issues than the money will ever solve.
$14M every 2 years rather than 4 years, should mean more cash to bring more teams to Aotearoa.
There presumably would also have to be biennial OFC WC qualifying with games at home. Though that might have to take the form of WC qualifying tourneys like the age group stuff is.
2-3 matches against OFC opposition every 2 years, yay!
Teams will have some sort of qualifying, plus a major competition (continental or WC) every year, plus the Olympics rolling around every four years, so no major nations will be available for friendlies.
It will also be far more expensive getting anybody over. They'll have far less friendlies available, so competition will be far more fierce and that extra 14m is not helping is a lot of teams are also getting 14m. It could actually end up a net negative in costs for bring teams over.
Teams will have some sort of qualifying, plus a major competition (continental or WC) every year, plus the Olympics rolling around every four years, so no major nations will be available for friendlies.
It will also be far more expensive getting anybody over. They'll have far less friendlies available, so competition will be far more fierce and that extra 14m is not helping is a lot of teams are also getting 14m. It could actually end up a net negative in costs for bring teams over.
Permalink
Permalink
So no different to now when we get lowly ranked Asian teams like India, Malaysia and China visiting.
Though maybe we could throw some of that $14M towards say Brazil, as an example who visit Aussie this September.
NZF will always struggle to get any big profile teams to visit Aotearoa, whether it's a 2 or 4 yearly WC cycle. Who is honestly excited about India's visit in November, when a host of big name AWs may not bother making the long haul trip south.
Some extra cash might make it a bit more of a lure, but then yes biennial WCs could almost completely see the disappearance of friendlies on the World football calendar.
Again I'm lukewarm on 2 yearly WCs. But I just want the AWs to play big, meaningful games more than thrice in a 4 year cycle. That is shite. No European football fan would be happy with that, not even those in San Marino.
Though maybe we could throw some of that $14M towards say Brazil, as an example who visit Aussie this September.
NZF will always struggle to get any big profile teams to visit Aotearoa, whether it's a 2 or 4 yearly WC cycle. Who is honestly excited about India's visit in November, when a host of big name AWs may not bother making the long haul trip south.
Some extra cash might make it a bit more of a lure, but then yes biennial WCs could almost completely see the disappearance of friendlies on the World football calendar.
Again I'm lukewarm on 2 yearly WCs. But I just want the AWs to play big, meaningful games more than thrice in a 4 year cycle. That is shite. No European football fan would be happy with that, not even those in San Marino.
Permalink
Permalink
No, because it would literally just be the OFC teams during qualifying tournaments and nothing else.
Friendlies would be ridiculously hard to come by, a massive reduction in supply (big teams always at tournaments) would lead to increased price and the fact so many Nations are making even more money would mean more Nations seeking these matches increasing price further.
Even if we somehow secured a friendly, odds are they have to rest their good players during what is probably their only break in the calendars.
Biennial World Cups would be bad for football and as such bad for us. Yes, we need more competitive matches, but that does not make a bad idea good.
Friendlies would be ridiculously hard to come by, a massive reduction in supply (big teams always at tournaments) would lead to increased price and the fact so many Nations are making even more money would mean more Nations seeking these matches increasing price further.
Even if we somehow secured a friendly, odds are they have to rest their good players during what is probably their only break in the calendars.
Biennial World Cups would be bad for football and as such bad for us. Yes, we need more competitive matches, but that does not make a bad idea good.
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by
Also worth noting that FIFA and Infantino give New Zealand and OFC better support in the current model.
What’s to say if it is sold off to Trump or JP Morgan they just decide to pull the rug up from underneath us and leave us high and dry? Trump is an untrustworthy, morally bankrupt person. Even if he were to say he would continue FIFA’s support of smaller nations/confederations there is nothing to suggest he wouldn’t reneg on that completely.
I personally don’t see how anyone could support this proposal.
What’s to say if it is sold off to Trump or JP Morgan they just decide to pull the rug up from underneath us and leave us high and dry? Trump is an untrustworthy, morally bankrupt person. Even if he were to say he would continue FIFA’s support of smaller nations/confederations there is nothing to suggest he wouldn’t reneg on that completely.
I personally don’t see how anyone could support this proposal.
Three for me, and two for them.
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by
Again the Devil is in the Detail. But Trump, PIV or whoever the private investor are to be, would be a minority shaeholder. Minority.
If that investor comes in and tries to make FIFA so profit driven that 'charity' projects like the OFC Pro League are cut from the FIFA dosh, Infantino ain't President anymore. You could see an emergency FIFA meeting being convened quick smart and he and his inner circle are gone.
So any private investors coming in will be schooled by Gianni, to keep buttering up to the small countries around the world, as Infantino needs their support. Chucking cash at the OPL and other projects through Africa and Asia is chicken feed in the expense column for FIFA and it's billions of revenue. Yes UEFA would like those 'charity' ventures binned, but hey Infantino knows how to use them to his benefit.
With the biennial WCs, would AWs fans really be disappointed if they came with the loss of friendly games against European B teams at unfriendly viewing hours? Don't really see the problem. Remember in the last cycle there were lots of odd numbered UEFA WC qualifying pools, and we managed friendly games against teams with a bye, who were otherwise in the midst of WC qualifying.
eg window last October first game - we played Poland, Norway played Israel (in a qualifier).
second game - we played Norway, Poland played Lithuania (in a qualifier)
Would odd numbered UEFA pools continue with biennial WCs? Who knows.
From this mess some sort of structure like the below, could work.
4 yearly WCs including all Confederations eg 2030, 2034 etc
4 yearly "World Championships" - sans UEFA and CONMEBOL, but including CONCACAF, CAF, AFC and OFC eg 2028, 2032 etc
The "World Championships" would yes without UEFA and CONMEBOL bring in billions less, but you'd still be catering to most of the world's population.
Say the top 2 teams from the "World Championship" playoff against winners Euros & CopaAmerica to generate even more FIFA dosh.
Again the Asian Cup is pretty meh (small crowds), and CONCACAF have to invite in teams to make their Continental comp (Gold Cup) interesting. The US, Mexico & Canada can only play each other so many times. CAF's AFCON is well supported and does generate lots of interest in Africa, so they won't be so keen to see that disappear.
Anyway Infantino's private investor plan at least deserves some investigation. His haste is unsavoury, but I like the Football Australia approach of okay what is the rush, lets at least have a looksee at what it would mean.
If that investor comes in and tries to make FIFA so profit driven that 'charity' projects like the OFC Pro League are cut from the FIFA dosh, Infantino ain't President anymore. You could see an emergency FIFA meeting being convened quick smart and he and his inner circle are gone.
So any private investors coming in will be schooled by Gianni, to keep buttering up to the small countries around the world, as Infantino needs their support. Chucking cash at the OPL and other projects through Africa and Asia is chicken feed in the expense column for FIFA and it's billions of revenue. Yes UEFA would like those 'charity' ventures binned, but hey Infantino knows how to use them to his benefit.
With the biennial WCs, would AWs fans really be disappointed if they came with the loss of friendly games against European B teams at unfriendly viewing hours? Don't really see the problem. Remember in the last cycle there were lots of odd numbered UEFA WC qualifying pools, and we managed friendly games against teams with a bye, who were otherwise in the midst of WC qualifying.
eg window last October first game - we played Poland, Norway played Israel (in a qualifier).
second game - we played Norway, Poland played Lithuania (in a qualifier)
Would odd numbered UEFA pools continue with biennial WCs? Who knows.
From this mess some sort of structure like the below, could work.
4 yearly WCs including all Confederations eg 2030, 2034 etc
4 yearly "World Championships" - sans UEFA and CONMEBOL, but including CONCACAF, CAF, AFC and OFC eg 2028, 2032 etc
The "World Championships" would yes without UEFA and CONMEBOL bring in billions less, but you'd still be catering to most of the world's population.
Say the top 2 teams from the "World Championship" playoff against winners Euros & CopaAmerica to generate even more FIFA dosh.
Again the Asian Cup is pretty meh (small crowds), and CONCACAF have to invite in teams to make their Continental comp (Gold Cup) interesting. The US, Mexico & Canada can only play each other so many times. CAF's AFCON is well supported and does generate lots of interest in Africa, so they won't be so keen to see that disappear.
Anyway Infantino's private investor plan at least deserves some investigation. His haste is unsavoury, but I like the Football Australia approach of okay what is the rush, lets at least have a looksee at what it would mean.
Permalink
Permalink
I think hydration breaks and the half time show ARE the point.
These are not decisions made for football. They are decisions made to get more money from football. The distract from the game.
FIFA is not a corporation that is required to maximise revenue for shareholders.
I don’t know what its charter says. But it is an administrative body on behalf of football nations.
Maybe UEFA isn’t great for us, but we’ve got plenty of players there.
Having an incentive to maximise profits from external investment will inevitably lead to conflicts and the area of highest costs for lowest returns would likely be Oceania.
Also it surely increases Infantino’s power. I don’t want another Balogun incident. FIFA should be cats in a bag and odd alliances to get things done. It shouldn’t speak with one voice.
These are not decisions made for football. They are decisions made to get more money from football. The distract from the game.
FIFA is not a corporation that is required to maximise revenue for shareholders.
I don’t know what its charter says. But it is an administrative body on behalf of football nations.
Maybe UEFA isn’t great for us, but we’ve got plenty of players there.
Having an incentive to maximise profits from external investment will inevitably lead to conflicts and the area of highest costs for lowest returns would likely be Oceania.
Also it surely increases Infantino’s power. I don’t want another Balogun incident. FIFA should be cats in a bag and odd alliances to get things done. It shouldn’t speak with one voice.
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by
Saying nothing, when saying something.
https://www.oceaniafootball.com/ofc-statement-on-fifa-forward-enterprise/
The Oceania Football Confederation (OFC) notes that FIFA has commenced a consultation process with its Member Associations and the FIFA Council regarding the proposed FIFA Forward Enterprise initiative.
https://www.oceaniafootball.com/ofc-statement-on-fifa-forward-enterprise/
The Oceania Football Confederation (OFC) notes that FIFA has commenced a consultation process with its Member Associations and the FIFA Council regarding the proposed FIFA Forward Enterprise initiative.
The proposal will be considered by the OFC Executive Committee at its upcoming meeting in August.
OFC invites its Member Associations to review the proposal and participate in the consultation process.
OFC remains committed to engaging constructively with its Member Associations, FIFA, fellow Confederations and other football stakeholders throughout the consultation process and in support of the continued development of football across Oceania and globally.
Permalink
Permalink
Buffon II wrote:
Also worth noting that FIFA and Infantino give New Zealand and OFC better support in the current model.
What’s to say if it is sold off to Trump or JP Morgan they just decide to pull the rug up from underneath us and leave us high and dry? Trump is an untrustworthy, morally bankrupt person. Even if he were to say he would continue FIFA’s support of smaller nations/confederations there is nothing to suggest he wouldn’t reneg on that completely.
I personally don’t see how anyone could support this proposal.
I think it's fair to extend your accurate description of Trump to his wider family and associates. Untrustworthy, morally bankrupt as well as corrupt grubby little pocket liners. I don't want anything remotely trump related being attached to FIFA. Without significant guidelines and stringent policing having FIFA awash with corporate money and big finance risks taking it further away from "for the good of the game" and toward "for the good of the greedy" or "for the pocket lining for the corrupt and crooked", like the extended trump clan
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by
martinb wrote:
I think hydration breaks and the half time show ARE the point.
These are not decisions made for football. They are decisions made to get more money from football. The distract from the game.
Absolutely
The hydration breaks etc decisions were clearly made with this plan in mind. The links to Trump's family around this also makes the yellow card fiasco even more questionable than it always was.
People can talk about safeguards all they like, but there clearly already aren't enough safeguards, and this would worsen the situation.
The hydration breaks etc decisions were clearly made with this plan in mind. The links to Trump's family around this also makes the yellow card fiasco even more questionable than it always was.
People can talk about safeguards all they like, but there clearly already aren't enough safeguards, and this would worsen the situation.
Permalink
Permalink
I heard that not only will world cup have 64 teams but also there will be 2x45min hydration breaks, split by 10mins of football. During the 10mins of football, the TV cameras will be required to cut away to show Gianni 15 times.
I have an amazing ability to find my way out of mazes. I'm pathological.
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by
AFC release a statement and join UEFA and CONCACAF in opposing Fifa's proposal.
It's over Gianni.
https://www.the-afc.com/en/more/afc_news.html/news/afc-stands-in-solidarity-with-uefa-and-concacaf-to-protect-the-fifa-world-cup
It's over Gianni.
https://www.the-afc.com/en/more/afc_news.html/news/afc-stands-in-solidarity-with-uefa-and-concacaf-to-protect-the-fifa-world-cup
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by
Even better, the AFC statement focuses on the poor governance that allowed this debacle to blow up in the first place: I’ll believe in meaningful change within FIFA when I see it, but they’ve nailed the real issue here.
Permalink
Permalink
Watching the demise of this cunt will be delightful.
No doubt there is another Infantino waiting in the wings but for now seeing the real deal go down in flames will be magnificent.
No doubt there is another Infantino waiting in the wings but for now seeing the real deal go down in flames will be magnificent.
Three for me, and two for them.
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by
It'll be interesting to see how long Infantino holds out, but I suspect he's going to push as long as possible.
Seems pretty clear at this point his job is on the line if he can't get this through and I'm not sure these confederations are the united front they are presenting as. AFC's statement here notable doesn't state disagreement with the FFE, just the process.
If he can push it through quickly he has what 2-3 years to try and sort the fall-out with FIFA all while gettting paid an extra $60m/year. I'd be surprised if he cares about how the Women's World Cup might suffer from this
Seems pretty clear at this point his job is on the line if he can't get this through and I'm not sure these confederations are the united front they are presenting as. AFC's statement here notable doesn't state disagreement with the FFE, just the process.
If he can push it through quickly he has what 2-3 years to try and sort the fall-out with FIFA all while gettting paid an extra $60m/year. I'd be surprised if he cares about how the Women's World Cup might suffer from this
Permalink
Permalink
YoungHeartHM wrote:
The house of cards is beginning to crumble.https://x.com/i/status/2083123503155331186
Good to see there is still someone with decency in amongst Infantino's close connections.
Permalink
Permalink
YoungHeartHM wrote:
AFC release a statement and join UEFA and CONCACAF in opposing Fifa's proposal.
It's over Gianni.
https://www.the-afc.com/en/more/afc_news.html/news/afc-stands-in-solidarity-with-uefa-and-concacaf-to-protect-the-fifa-world-cup
Holy shit, I think I just fell in love the AFC. What a statement.
I have an amazing ability to find my way out of mazes. I'm pathological.
Permalink
Permalink
YoungHeartHM wrote:
The house of cards is beginning to crumble.https://x.com/i/status/2083123503155331186
I get image not found when clicking the link.
I have an amazing ability to find my way out of mazes. I'm pathological.
Permalink
Permalink
There should be a rule that the head of Fifa has to be replaced every 2 or 4 years. The longer the president is there the more corrupt they seem to become
Permalink
Permalink
Football is one of those things. It’s on, we want to watch it. Guys like John Oliver who watch like owls for corruption and injustice want to watch the football. What hope is there for anyone else to play Batman? It’s valuable and people want a piece.
Gianni’s mistake was to do it with Trump’s rules: blatantly and crassly in the open. If it’s a bit more clandestine I’m sure the there’ll be less of a fuss.
Gianni’s mistake was to do it with Trump’s rules: blatantly and crassly in the open. If it’s a bit more clandestine I’m sure the there’ll be less of a fuss.
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by
kwlap wrote:YoungHeartHM wrote:I get image not found when clicking the link.
The house of cards is beginning to crumble.https://x.com/i/status/2083123503155331186
Sorry, he deleted the original tweet. I have updated my post to reflect this.
Permalink
Permalink
Ranix wrote:
There should be a rule that the head of Fifa has to be replaced every 2 or 4 years. The longer the president is there the more corrupt they seem to become
100% this. You could go into the role with the purest intentions but the amount of money and power sloshing around almost guarantees it’ll end up rotten - or if not, there’ll be perceptions of corruption and conflict of interest which are almost just as bad for the game.
Permalink
Permalink
More importantly more effective checks and ballances are neeeded. We reached this point for a reason and it's because Infantino kept doing worse things without any real consequence. In Febuary 2021 it was revealed that roughly 40 migrant workers had deaths linked to stadium construction, and in response Infantino made that "Today I feel like a migrant worker" speech and faced no consequences. Everyone was in uproar over the Club World Cup and what it meant for player health, yet apparently everyone watched it anyway. And everything linked to this World Cup with the Balogun red card, insane ticket price gauging that people bought anyway, the ad/hydration breaks, ect. Every time Infantino has done something it's been met with all bark no bite. We need some way to genuinely hold these people accountable, or else the next FIFA President is just gonna be another Infantino. It's ridiculous that his position is only now being considered "untenable" because half the continental FA's are against him, it shouldn't have to go this far for his position to be untenable.
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by
NZF have also (finally) come out saying the won't support the proposal
https://www.nzfootball.co.nz/newsarticle/168502
https://www.nzfootball.co.nz/newsarticle/168502
Permalink
Permalink