lol, was that before or after that FIFA said it was off?
After the initial reports came out for sure. Gutless for not condemning it from the start.
Valley FC til I die?
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by
being the smallest confed probably stops us from being the first to condem or accept anything, if the others go the opposote way we are out on a limb
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/361014424/fifa-scraps-controversial-world-cup-investment-plan
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/361014424/fifa-scraps-controversial-world-cup-investment-plan
Queenslander 3x a year.
Permalink
Permalink
Important not to be a sheep all your life however.
It’s that kind of attitude that lets his bully mate Trump do what he does and what he was banking on.
Making your statement after the fact is cowardly and you may as well not do it.
It’s that kind of attitude that lets his bully mate Trump do what he does and what he was banking on.
Making your statement after the fact is cowardly and you may as well not do it.
Auckland will rise once more
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by
We didnt necessarily have to be first, but the way the wind was blowing was obvious from the off. UEFA, CONCACAF and AFC all condemned it and we still waited to announce our position until there was zero risk of it happening even though the correct call was easy and obvious.
NZF do love a bit of poor governance though, even if its been mostly better recently.
NZF do love a bit of poor governance though, even if its been mostly better recently.
Valley FC til I die?
Permalink
Permalink
Mind my language but now can he get the fuck out of FIFA, I hope a lot of confeds push it and refuse to engage until he's gone.
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by
I might be a suspicious bstd, but I wonder what has been happening while all this has been going on.
What’s the fall back or compromise position or sneaky rule change or whatever that’s been happening or going to happen now everything is on a continuum between selling off part of the cup and the status quo.
Maybe we’ll see long term contracts to provide suppliers or have the event management rights or some such signed. Or something I can’t think of…
What’s the fall back or compromise position or sneaky rule change or whatever that’s been happening or going to happen now everything is on a continuum between selling off part of the cup and the status quo.
Maybe we’ll see long term contracts to provide suppliers or have the event management rights or some such signed. Or something I can’t think of…
Permalink
Permalink
I think I've heard stronger pushing for the oversized 64-team World Cup going on, so maybe that?
But that doesn't feel like it would need a distraction tactic going on
But that doesn't feel like it would need a distraction tactic going on
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by
Nelfoos wrote:
After the initial reports came out for sure. Gutless for not condemning it from the start.
Well no, it was really for OFC to respond not NZF
Pragnell pretty fairly said NZF staff needed time to analyse and digest the idea. UEFA likely have a few hundred staff, have been at loggerheads with Infantino for 10 years and have billions of their own to not really care about upsetting FIFA.
Little minnow NZF don’t have that luxury, and with zero to gain by criticising early. Not sure Football Australia criticised this at all before it was pulled by FIFA
Pragnell pretty fairly said NZF staff needed time to analyse and digest the idea. UEFA likely have a few hundred staff, have been at loggerheads with Infantino for 10 years and have billions of their own to not really care about upsetting FIFA.
Little minnow NZF don’t have that luxury, and with zero to gain by criticising early. Not sure Football Australia criticised this at all before it was pulled by FIFA
Permalink
Permalink
If it wasn't for NZF to say anything why did they make a statement?
There was everything to gain by making a statement early. By delaying it until it was dead NZ fans can have no confidence that NZF want or know what is best for the game of football.
By following the footsteps of UEFA earlier on, they had the chance to be on the right side of history. As it is, by waiting until the deal was off they appear to have been open to endorsing blatant corruption by considering a ridiculous proposal that had zero merit.
Hesitation by others is no excuse not to do the right thing.
Im disappointed, but not remotely surprised. Pragnell has never seen a fence he didn't want to sit on.
Like I said, gutless.
There was everything to gain by making a statement early. By delaying it until it was dead NZ fans can have no confidence that NZF want or know what is best for the game of football.
By following the footsteps of UEFA earlier on, they had the chance to be on the right side of history. As it is, by waiting until the deal was off they appear to have been open to endorsing blatant corruption by considering a ridiculous proposal that had zero merit.
Hesitation by others is no excuse not to do the right thing.
Im disappointed, but not remotely surprised. Pragnell has never seen a fence he didn't want to sit on.
Like I said, gutless.
Valley FC til I die?
Permalink
Permalink
Has there been other MAs to come out before their Confed and make a statement? I haven’t followed it daily.
Never saw a statement from CONMEBOL. Did any of the National FAs there make their own statements?
Never saw a statement from CONMEBOL. Did any of the National FAs there make their own statements?
Permalink
Permalink
OFC might as well have said nothing though. It was an empty statement
Permalink
Permalink
I liked the statment opposing it, but had that come out say yesterday, then it would have been an absolute banger.
As it was, the New York Post published an article about 9.30am this morning saying Gianni Cash's proposal was all but dead in the water.
I guess better late than never works though. 🤷♂️
And as it was the statement was more blunt than some other's put out by other FA's around the globe, so I'm giving them a 'C-' overall. Sitting on it and the timing of it right before it was formally announced was probably more cheeky than anything. Still a better position than what Football Australia put out though...
As it was, the New York Post published an article about 9.30am this morning saying Gianni Cash's proposal was all but dead in the water.
I guess better late than never works though. 🤷♂️
And as it was the statement was more blunt than some other's put out by other FA's around the globe, so I'm giving them a 'C-' overall. Sitting on it and the timing of it right before it was formally announced was probably more cheeky than anything. Still a better position than what Football Australia put out though...
Permalink
Permalink
Thoughts with coochie during this difficult time after defending Infantino to the hilt for the past 72 hours.
Three for me, and two for them.
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by
I just thought the private investment idea was worth further investigation/DD. Doesn't mean I trust Infantino or particularly like him.
I thought the response from Football Australia about right. We need time to digest what this left field sudden announcement means for everyone. I think NZF were within their rights to take a bit of time and look through whatever FIFA sent them.
100% the rush to proceed and pressure tactics from Gianni was plain wrong. Unsavoury. But overall his Presidency has been mostly good for our part of the world, with a completely a selfish Australia/Oceania lens.
I have zero faith that UEFA care about football down here. So if a power struggle now eventuates, and a UEFA bloc gets to control decision making within FIFA - well be careful what you wish for.
Still the poster earlier, who opined FIFA Pesidents should be limited to 1-2 or two terms, is probably on the money. Absolute power corrupts.
Note FIFA election next March and Infantino would need a two-thirds majority in the first round, or a simple majority in subsequent rounds to extend his presidency until 2031.
NZ Football’s analysis ultimately led to the statement it issued on Saturday morning and Pragnell defended the time it took, noting there had not been many MAs getting ahead of their confederation or making their own statements.
I thought the response from Football Australia about right. We need time to digest what this left field sudden announcement means for everyone. I think NZF were within their rights to take a bit of time and look through whatever FIFA sent them.
100% the rush to proceed and pressure tactics from Gianni was plain wrong. Unsavoury. But overall his Presidency has been mostly good for our part of the world, with a completely a selfish Australia/Oceania lens.
I have zero faith that UEFA care about football down here. So if a power struggle now eventuates, and a UEFA bloc gets to control decision making within FIFA - well be careful what you wish for.
Still the poster earlier, who opined FIFA Pesidents should be limited to 1-2 or two terms, is probably on the money. Absolute power corrupts.
Note FIFA election next March and Infantino would need a two-thirds majority in the first round, or a simple majority in subsequent rounds to extend his presidency until 2031.
NZ Football’s analysis ultimately led to the statement it issued on Saturday morning and Pragnell defended the time it took, noting there had not been many MAs getting ahead of their confederation or making their own statements.
“What we did is take a proper, considered approach. I think what you did see is some knee-jerk reactions – people who out and out just rejected it, regardless. We worked our way through the materials. We had pages of questions around both how this arose and many questions that would have to be answered before it was even considered.
“I think you've seen plenty of online knee-jerk reactions. I'm really proud of the way we approached it. If anything, we would have liked to have gone with the confederation, but it is what it is.”
Pragnell said Cordeiro – who said “I cannot stand by while FIFA considers selling a stake in the World Cup – and Lamour – who said “Not only must this project not go ahead … but the time has now come for football political leaders to ask themselves the right questions and make the right decisions” were football leaders he had “a lot of time for” and “people who have been supportive of New Zealand football”.
Reacting to their interventions, Pragnell said: “I think that there are clearly some internal rifts within FIFA and global football at this point, and that there needs to be a lot of dialogue, and there will be a lot of dialogue in the coming few weeks. I think it's too early to say what that means longer term for FIFA leadership, I think there's more to play out. But certainly, it's alarming to see high quality people inside FIFA who've supported New Zealand football in the past saying these things, so watch the space”.
Infantino’s future as FIFA president is expected to come into question, amid reports Uefa is already trying to find a challenger to stand at next March’s election, where he had been expected to stand unopposed.
Pragnell would not say whether NZ Football supported Infantino continuing in the role: “It's obviously too early for us to say, and that's obviously a discussion for the board and not me”.
Permalink
Permalink
Didn't realise that FIFA had $USD5billion in reserves.
Yes you do have to ask why there is a need to hold such a huge amount of cash, and why not pay out more annually to the 211 MAs. It's a fair question.
Interesting 6 months or so ahead to next March.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/361014521/uefa-demands-change-after-loss-confidence-infantino
“And with reserves standing at over $5bn, he has also failed to use associations’ money for the benefit of the game.
Yes you do have to ask why there is a need to hold such a huge amount of cash, and why not pay out more annually to the 211 MAs. It's a fair question.
Interesting 6 months or so ahead to next March.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/361014521/uefa-demands-change-after-loss-confidence-infantino
“And with reserves standing at over $5bn, he has also failed to use associations’ money for the benefit of the game.
“Uefa will begin work immediately with partners and stakeholders all over the world and right across the game to propose a new way of distributing resources through the existing Fifa Forward programme.
“We must start to use some of that money that is sat idle in Fifa’s bank account to deliver the kick start that the grass roots and the wider game need in each of the 211 countries of Fifa. But we don’t need to sell off the family silver to pay for it.
“This is a victory for the whole game. But it must not be the end of the story. The proposal has gone. The task of rebuilding trust in Fifa has only just begun.”
Permalink
Permalink
Football surely makes enough money.
This is the same as the justification of PPPs. There’s no cost saving for PPPs usually. There is a lot of potential for short term political gain for saying you’re doing things but not paying anything up front or wearing immediate interest costs. But in the medium term or long run PPPs make good money for the money men. And government can borrow money much cheaper than other entities, especially if it’s for good infrastructure investment.
What does football need private investment to fund?
There’s plenty enough money in the game to host the World Cup.
This is the same as the justification of PPPs. There’s no cost saving for PPPs usually. There is a lot of potential for short term political gain for saying you’re doing things but not paying anything up front or wearing immediate interest costs. But in the medium term or long run PPPs make good money for the money men. And government can borrow money much cheaper than other entities, especially if it’s for good infrastructure investment.
What does football need private investment to fund?
There’s plenty enough money in the game to host the World Cup.
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by
Buffon II wrote:
Thoughts with coochie during this difficult time after defending Infantino to the hilt for the past 72 hours.
Tbf coochie also argued that Trump bombing Iran would bring democracy to that country, he was having a difficult time already
Ramming liberal dribble down your throat since 2009
This forum needs less angst and more Kate Bush threads
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by
Infantino back paddled because he want to be re-elected again just to hatch another shitty plan. I hope this was the final straw and they vote him out next year.
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by
this may well be the battle that effects change at the helm of FIFA, you know UEFA are gonna push hard for Infantino's resignation. but the change may not be good for OFC, for all his faults and corrupt dealings OFC has definately benefited from his direction, the new person may not be as generous.
Queenslander 3x a year.
Permalink
Permalink
Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
Permalink
Permalink
Doloras wrote:Buffon II wrote:
Thoughts with coochie during this difficult time after defending Infantino to the hilt for the past 72 hours.
Tbf coochie also argued that Trump bombing Iran would bring democracy to that country, he was having a difficult time already
Yes I got carried away with the successful Maduro uplift and talking to my Iranian dissident neighbour here.
But hey Dolaras I'm sure you are out there on the Auckland streets with a "Stop Bombing Iran" banner. Nowhere to be seen though when the Regime were murdering 10,000 of their own civilians. That is a far less fasionable cause.
I see CONMEBOL a bit like Football Australia, asked for more intel from FIFA. Didn't otherwise make an announcement before Infantino pulled the pin. Manana manana
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/39934023/brazil-argentina-reveal-infantino-world-cup-plan-stance/
But hey Dolaras I'm sure you are out there on the Auckland streets with a "Stop Bombing Iran" banner. Nowhere to be seen though when the Regime were murdering 10,000 of their own civilians. That is a far less fasionable cause.
I see CONMEBOL a bit like Football Australia, asked for more intel from FIFA. Didn't otherwise make an announcement before Infantino pulled the pin. Manana manana
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/39934023/brazil-argentina-reveal-infantino-world-cup-plan-stance/
Permalink
Permalink
theprof wrote:
this may well be the battle that effects change at the helm of FIFA, you know UEFA are gonna push hard for Infantino's resignation. but the change may not be good for OFC, for all his faults and corrupt dealings OFC has definately benefited from his direction, the new person may not be as generous.
Its not like Infantino was helping OFC out of the goodness of his heart.
Unless the voting structure changes I'd expect whoever is in charge would still be keen on the favour of the smaller nations given they have the same voting power as the bigger ones but are far easier to get vote from due to the level of resources available.
Unless the voting structure changes I'd expect whoever is in charge would still be keen on the favour of the smaller nations given they have the same voting power as the bigger ones but are far easier to get vote from due to the level of resources available.
Valley FC til I die?
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by
Nelfoos wrote:theprof wrote:Its not like Infantino was helping OFC out of the goodness of his heart.
this may well be the battle that effects change at the helm of FIFA, you know UEFA are gonna push hard for Infantino's resignation. but the change may not be good for OFC, for all his faults and corrupt dealings OFC has definately benefited from his direction, the new person may not be as generous.
Unless the voting structure changes I'd expect whoever is in charge would still be keen on the favour of the smaller nations given they have the same voting power as the bigger ones but are far easier to get vote from due to the level of resources available.
oh I totally agree with you there, but he was giving OFC more help than previous regimes, there was absoutely nothing altruistic about it though
and thats the thing that concerns me, anyone who comes in to replace Infantino will have their own friends and influencers they want to appease, which could well mean changes in voting power sor smaller confeds
and thats the thing that concerns me, anyone who comes in to replace Infantino will have their own friends and influencers they want to appease, which could well mean changes in voting power sor smaller confeds
Queenslander 3x a year.
Permalink
Permalink
The last contested FIFA Presidential election was 2016.
Infantino got 115 votes, beating Asian Football Confederation president Sheikh Salman into second place with 88.
Prince Ali bin al Hussein, president of the Jordan Football Association, won four votes in the second round (27 votes in the first round), and former FIFA deputy secretary general Jerome Champagne got none.
Secret ballot voting went to a 2nd round after no clear winner in the 1st round. Remember Platini was all set to run but then got revealed in the corruption scandals engulfing FIFA in the Blatter era.
Infantino (being an ex UEFA bigwig) reportedly had alot of support/votes from UEFA nations.
Given UEFA, CONCACAF & the AFC (136 votes combined) were quick to condemn Infantino's plans, if between them they can find a strong alternative candidate to run March next year, they might topple Gianni as a combined bloc. Not that there is any guarantee all countries within the same Confed will vote the same way. But seems more common than not. Though yes alot of smaller AFC nations have done well since 2016, eg this year's new FIFA AESAN Cup comp setup by FIFA.
Would a new FIFA President from UEFA, CONCACAF or AFC be as generous to OFC as Infantino?
What if they did win the Presidency without OFC's support?
Interesting that none of CONEMBOL, CAF or OFC really made a firm comment on this private investment plan. Clear difference to the other 3 Confeds.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cy07qjzzexzo
Caf president Patrice Motsepe lauded Infantino for his "excellent work" after this year's World Cup and hailed the Swiss as "a good friend".
Infantino got 115 votes, beating Asian Football Confederation president Sheikh Salman into second place with 88.
Prince Ali bin al Hussein, president of the Jordan Football Association, won four votes in the second round (27 votes in the first round), and former FIFA deputy secretary general Jerome Champagne got none.
Secret ballot voting went to a 2nd round after no clear winner in the 1st round. Remember Platini was all set to run but then got revealed in the corruption scandals engulfing FIFA in the Blatter era.
Infantino (being an ex UEFA bigwig) reportedly had alot of support/votes from UEFA nations.
Given UEFA, CONCACAF & the AFC (136 votes combined) were quick to condemn Infantino's plans, if between them they can find a strong alternative candidate to run March next year, they might topple Gianni as a combined bloc. Not that there is any guarantee all countries within the same Confed will vote the same way. But seems more common than not. Though yes alot of smaller AFC nations have done well since 2016, eg this year's new FIFA AESAN Cup comp setup by FIFA.
Would a new FIFA President from UEFA, CONCACAF or AFC be as generous to OFC as Infantino?
What if they did win the Presidency without OFC's support?
Interesting that none of CONEMBOL, CAF or OFC really made a firm comment on this private investment plan. Clear difference to the other 3 Confeds.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cy07qjzzexzo
Caf president Patrice Motsepe lauded Infantino for his "excellent work" after this year's World Cup and hailed the Swiss as "a good friend".
"He is loyal to Africa," Motsepe said on 22 July. "When people have been loyal to you, you never stab them in the back."
An interesting 6 months ahead.
The unexpected victory of Infantino over Salman (in 2016), named a heavy favorite in the lead-up to the election, surprised some observers; a bloc in opposition to Salman is speculated to have tipped the second round vote in Infantino's favor. United States Soccer Federation president Sunil Gulati and other CONCACAF federations played a key role in Infantino's margin of victory, reportedly shifting their vote from Prince Ali to Infantino after a series of conversations between the two rounds of voting.
FIFA has 211 member associations, and each member association gets one equal vote in the FIFA presidential election.
Breakdown of Votes by Confederation
UEFA (Europe): 55 member votes
CAF (Africa): 54 member votes
AFC (Asia): 46 member votes
CONCACAF (North, Central America, and the Caribbean): 35 member votes (some counts include up to 41 regional members depending on active status, with 35–41 total)
CONMEBOL (South America): 10 member votes
OFC (Oceania): 11 member votes
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by
Nelfoos wrote:theprof wrote:Its not like Infantino was helping OFC out of the goodness of his heart.
this may well be the battle that effects change at the helm of FIFA, you know UEFA are gonna push hard for Infantino's resignation. but the change may not be good for OFC, for all his faults and corrupt dealings OFC has definately benefited from his direction, the new person may not be as generous.
Unless the voting structure changes I'd expect whoever is in charge would still be keen on the favour of the smaller nations given they have the same voting power as the bigger ones but are far easier to get vote from due to the level of resources available.
Well there was the alleged incident with "Honest" Sepp offering an incentive as well as a promise to have Oceania (AKA New Zealand) be given a direct route to any future World Cup finals, to obtain New Zealand's vote for the World Cup finals to go to Germany. Charlie Dempsey abstained and they went to Germany.
Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
Permalink
Permalink
Well this thing is going on with countries pulling support to Infantino. Though Bhutan is sticking by him
Orange Man is ghosting him as well. What a mess.
Orange Man is ghosting him as well. What a mess.
Permalink
Permalink
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/361016684/gianni-infantino-gets-internal-support-crisis-meeting
concerns raised but he still has the numbers apparently.
concerns raised but he still has the numbers apparently.
Queenslander 3x a year.
Permalink
Permalink
Procrastinixing wrote:
Orange Man is ghosting him as well. What a mess.
At least he can count on Coochie’s unwavering support.
Three for me, and two for them.
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by
Buffon II wrote:Procrastinixing wrote:At least he can count on Coochie’s unwavering support.
Orange Man is ghosting him as well. What a mess.
Gianni and me are pen pals.
All I said Buffoon, was Infantino's idea should at least be considered (devil in the detail), not completely dismissed without a look. So I supported the approach of Football Australia and NZF, who said they needed more time. OFC, CONEMBOL and CAF also didn't dismiss the idea immediately.
After an indepth read, Pragnell says NZF weren't happy either with this private investment plan. I trust them to have done the right thing.
Really it's all about the money. UEFA (revenues of €4.4 billion to €5 billion annually!), and presumably CONCACAF (off the back of the biggest WC ever) plus AFC (Saudi & Qatar billions?) have moolah in spades. Infantino's promised extra $30million or whatever per MA, to them ain't much of a carrot.
The relative paupers are the other 3 Confeds, so I think they are justified to at least look into it, further.
And I stand by my earlier statement, that a new UEFA/West Asian backed President if it happens, may not be great news for our part of the world. The Europeans care squat about football outside their borders. Though I'm sure they will work in with the Saudis or Qataris etc with their deep pockets to get what they want. I mean they are happy to accept all those sports washed club teams in their various Euro club leagues, plus the UEFA cashflow behemoth that is the Champions League.
All I said Buffoon, was Infantino's idea should at least be considered (devil in the detail), not completely dismissed without a look. So I supported the approach of Football Australia and NZF, who said they needed more time. OFC, CONEMBOL and CAF also didn't dismiss the idea immediately.
After an indepth read, Pragnell says NZF weren't happy either with this private investment plan. I trust them to have done the right thing.
Really it's all about the money. UEFA (revenues of €4.4 billion to €5 billion annually!), and presumably CONCACAF (off the back of the biggest WC ever) plus AFC (Saudi & Qatar billions?) have moolah in spades. Infantino's promised extra $30million or whatever per MA, to them ain't much of a carrot.
The relative paupers are the other 3 Confeds, so I think they are justified to at least look into it, further.
And I stand by my earlier statement, that a new UEFA/West Asian backed President if it happens, may not be great news for our part of the world. The Europeans care squat about football outside their borders. Though I'm sure they will work in with the Saudis or Qataris etc with their deep pockets to get what they want. I mean they are happy to accept all those sports washed club teams in their various Euro club leagues, plus the UEFA cashflow behemoth that is the Champions League.
Permalink
Permalink
But the point being, what are they selling and is it going to cost them more in the long run?
And if one confederation is making almost 6 billion, then spreading around 300 million to the places that don’t have much shouldn’t be a big ask. I suggested before a small salary tythe at a certain level or a small percentage of match day revenue.
If you’re paying players 300k a week on transfers 60 mill to 120 mill (whatever currency), then a bit of spend on infrastructure, coaching and the odd player of decent quality in a relatively cheaper economy is gunna be fine…
And if one confederation is making almost 6 billion, then spreading around 300 million to the places that don’t have much shouldn’t be a big ask. I suggested before a small salary tythe at a certain level or a small percentage of match day revenue.
If you’re paying players 300k a week on transfers 60 mill to 120 mill (whatever currency), then a bit of spend on infrastructure, coaching and the odd player of decent quality in a relatively cheaper economy is gunna be fine…
Permalink
Permalink
Permalink
Permalink
The Netflix FIFA docos are a great watch. Corruption and FIFA are the same two things.
There is plenty of European media talk about the whole FIFA structure and how it needs to be reworked. Having a rotating head of FIFA would be a good idea. Everyone on the FIFA executive would take a 4 year term and they would just be chosen by random ballot from the executive group. Thus reducing the probability of vote buying
Worrying for NZ is that there also plenty of noise about how the present Confederation structure needs an overhaul. People are complaining about how a tinpot federation like Oceania get more votes 11 than South America 10 and also get an automatic WC slot. Everyone is scrambling to push their own interests. Basically Europe is mega powerful and mega rich and they want to flex their muscles. They don’t really care about global development of the game and what happens out side their rich playpen.
Even though Blatter and Infantino are corrupt A holes they have done an enormous amount for countries in Africa and other smaller countries around the globe, which was mainly about getting votes tbh. There are multiple power plays underway. Little NZ will just be a cork on a stormy ocean. Who knows how this will play out.
There is plenty of European media talk about the whole FIFA structure and how it needs to be reworked. Having a rotating head of FIFA would be a good idea. Everyone on the FIFA executive would take a 4 year term and they would just be chosen by random ballot from the executive group. Thus reducing the probability of vote buying
Worrying for NZ is that there also plenty of noise about how the present Confederation structure needs an overhaul. People are complaining about how a tinpot federation like Oceania get more votes 11 than South America 10 and also get an automatic WC slot. Everyone is scrambling to push their own interests. Basically Europe is mega powerful and mega rich and they want to flex their muscles. They don’t really care about global development of the game and what happens out side their rich playpen.
Even though Blatter and Infantino are corrupt A holes they have done an enormous amount for countries in Africa and other smaller countries around the globe, which was mainly about getting votes tbh. There are multiple power plays underway. Little NZ will just be a cork on a stormy ocean. Who knows how this will play out.
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by
Speaking of OFC, a somewhat depressing article about how Infantino can still buy the support of a lot of smaller Member Associations - they might not like it, but their domestic setup could depend upon it:
This says to me that any viable challenger will have to offer them a similar level of investment, which as noted above might not be coming from the likes of a UEFA candidate.
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by
Come next March UEFA, CONCACAF and West Asia bloc may try put up an alternative candidate from the Middle East (rather than a European) who might be a bit more acceptable to smaller nations, like those in OFC.
The 11-member Oceania federation were scheduled to meet on Wednesday to discuss the row that has split world football asunder and Davani thinks they are in a tough spot.
The 11-member Oceania federation were scheduled to meet on Wednesday to discuss the row that has split world football asunder and Davani thinks they are in a tough spot.
"I don't think the sort of institutional silence or the quiet coming out of the region is complicity or apathy or anything like that," the lawyer and sports administrator told Reuters in an interview from Brisbane.
"I actually think it's almost a predictable response in an environment where the FIFA ... development funding is often at times the entire operational budget for a member association from Oceania. So in that context, I think they've been placed in a tricky position.
"On the one hand, you have some of the big confederations coming out being very vocal about the proposal. And on the other hand, you have a situation where, not right or wrong, and maybe not intentionally, I think it's just a situation where speaking or forming a view may perhaps risk that funding.
"You don't want to put that at risk because it's your livelihood."
The flaw in the system, Davani believes, is that FIFA's funding is discretionary, not an entitlement.
"Whilst the FIFA statutes quite frequently talk about development funding and development programmes, nowhere in there is it enshrined the sort of principle that development money is an entitlement versus discretionary money," he said.
"We all believe that the World Cup and the Women's World Cup, they belong to us (and) the development funding derives from those major assets. So I do think that if we have the sense of belonging to it, member associations can certainly decide where it should go."
National Football Centres
Davani said that smaller federations, like most of those in Oceania, have done well out of Infantino's decade in charge of FIFA with funding increasing from US$2 million (NZ$3.4m) -$3 million (NZ$5.1m) over a four-year cycle to $8m in the last round.
Infantino inaugurated a new national football centre in PNG funded by FIFA Forward money in 2023, and another has opened in the Solomon Islands. Vanuatu has a new stadium.
Permalink
Permalink
Meanwhile Infantino might go all in on the WC expansion to 64 teams, that it seems CONMEBOL want.
If that happened as soon as 2030, then maybe half the tourney gets staged in South America, rather than just the current proposed 3 games.
Could see CAF, also supporting a 64 team WC as they have a host of teams of pretty much equal rankings, and note all of them can qualify for even a 48 team WC. Nigeria and Cameroon notable absentees this year. Would OFC favour a 64 team WC? Who knows
https://twitter.com/AndyGibsonTV/status/2087307412000866380
If that happened as soon as 2030, then maybe half the tourney gets staged in South America, rather than just the current proposed 3 games.
Could see CAF, also supporting a 64 team WC as they have a host of teams of pretty much equal rankings, and note all of them can qualify for even a 48 team WC. Nigeria and Cameroon notable absentees this year. Would OFC favour a 64 team WC? Who knows
https://twitter.com/AndyGibsonTV/status/2087307412000866380
https://twitter.com/AndyGibsonTV/status/2087307412000866380
Permalink
Permalink
OFC would totally back 64 teams in a WC, especially if it meant 2 from OFC would qualify, think of the money boost to New Caledonia qualifying for a WC.
Queenslander 3x a year.
Permalink
Permalink
It’s by no means a certainty that Infantino would lose the Presidency vote. As has been pointed out he’s been very good to the smaller poorer nations outside Europe. Oceania don’t want to see the money supply dry up so they will vote for him, as will probably all the African and Middle East countries and the Caribbean countries.
NZ won’t want any change. We get big money now from going to the WC. Under Infantinos Trump sell off deal NZ would have got $20 million USD. That’s unbelievable money for a small country like NZ. Just think what that could do to football development in NZ. No $300 club fees for kids????
But we are in this position because of FIFAs dodgy structure and rules. If the grants were set in the statutes and not made on the wim of the President then it would decrease the chance of vote buying and corruption.
I don’t trust Europe at all. FIFA grants are small change to them. $5 million is huge for NZ but it’s only a weeks wages for Mbappé. For them it’s all about control and power. They don’t want FIFA competitions interfering with their lucrative competitions like the Champions League and other Cups. They see an enlarged FIFA World Club competition as a direct threat.
NZ won’t want any change. We get big money now from going to the WC. Under Infantinos Trump sell off deal NZ would have got $20 million USD. That’s unbelievable money for a small country like NZ. Just think what that could do to football development in NZ. No $300 club fees for kids????
But we are in this position because of FIFAs dodgy structure and rules. If the grants were set in the statutes and not made on the wim of the President then it would decrease the chance of vote buying and corruption.
I don’t trust Europe at all. FIFA grants are small change to them. $5 million is huge for NZ but it’s only a weeks wages for Mbappé. For them it’s all about control and power. They don’t want FIFA competitions interfering with their lucrative competitions like the Champions League and other Cups. They see an enlarged FIFA World Club competition as a direct threat.
Permalink
Permalink
Endorsed by