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