CONCACAF join UEFA and reject FIFA's World Cup sell-off plan. https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/49488584/uefa-boycott... . By the end of this Gianni Infantino will only be left with the Africans .I am African and these Federations will do anything to keep him around because of the unprecedented amounts of corruption...
I actually think the CONCACAF statement shows that they could be on board… they’re just mad they weren’t consulted. Give them the cut they want and they might change their tune.
Because they already have a cash cow in the Champions League. European teams on both the club and national team level dominate world football, they're not about to let a fox into the chicken coop. UEFA is just as corrupt as FIFA.
This statement is weak and wishy-washy compared to the blunt UEFA statement. Kudos to Europe. Here’s hoping CONCACAF can get brave enough to take the moral stance as well.
Yeah, they just rejected the proposal. Meanwhile, UEFA is boycotting the game until those plans are DEFINITELY abandoned. I am wondering whether UEFA could even ask for a change in FIFA statute to ensure it can never be proposed again.
FTA: "As a result of today’s discussion, no UEFA national teams will participate in any FIFA competition for so long as these proposals remain alive, unless this proposal has been abandoned in its entirety and binding assurances have been given that FIFA will never again open its governance or competitions to private ownership." (emphasis mine)
My own frustration isn't corruption per se, a state cannot exist without it - at least not for long, but how cheap African corruption is in general. Others may require considerable resources and billions perhaps. Not here. Just a few Land Rover discoverys for key officials and a scholarship for their kids in Europe is all that is required to sell a whole state. To say nothing of a sporting organization.
It's not cheap to them. You have to adjust for purchasing power - the US dollar goes a lot farther in most African countries than it does in the US. That Land Rover, if sold on the open market, could yield enough for a Nigerian live the rest of their life in Lagos without having to work. An equivalent-purchasing-power bribe in the US would be on the order of several million USD.
That’s not Africa only. When a corruption scandal comes up (bribing, lobbying), I’m often surprised at how cheap it was to buy the official. It’s often in the 10–50k eur region.
Sure but keep in mind that for a lot of countries soccer isn't that big of a deal. There are a lot of countries in fifa and they all have equal voting power.
Some island in the Caribbean has equal say compared to Spain for example.
That's why it's so easy. Bribe the people in the countries where the people don't care about soccer.
the crypto hater mantra from day one was "this is just for drugs, bribery and money laundering". the only word I object to in that statement is "just".
I assume the politicians are kept in a very carefully managed microcosm so that they actually think they're making the best choices for their nation, because all other options have been hidden from them or misrepresented.
I think that's not capitalism, that's human nature. On every possible power structure you can think of, there will be people available to compromise on their moral principles if given the right incentives to do so. Under capitalism that's easily money, under other systems it might be something else. You can work to mitigate or detect and deter it (the amount of effort put on that is what makes the difference between limited and widespread corruption). You cannot hope to eliminate it entirely.
I am not sure a replacement for Infantino is enough. It seems like FIFA has a culture of corruption and Infantino is merely the latest manifestation of said culture. Some serious reform and restructuring seem needed.
Here’s a solution: bar FIFA from selling viewing rights to their competitions and allow any station or channel to stream for free. That would grow the global game.
Take away the money and FIFA doesn’t have much to bargain with. They need to remember they are a purely administrative organization.
“Football is almost non-existent on this Pacific island. Nauru has never fielded a team in an official international match and it has just one – hard sand – pitch.
While there is interest in big Premier League matches, and children wear Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo kits, any attempts to actually play football tend to be mocked, unless it's Aussie rules.”
Fifa is a reflection of the world. All members (nations) get a vote. Most countries are corrupt. Thank go there is still a bastion of democracy/fairness left in Uefa.
The FIA (motorsport governing body) is giving them a run for their money. Recently removed presidency term limits and made several other rule changes to prevent challengers. And like FIFA, despite the majority opinion seeming to be against the corruption the decisions get rubber stamped anyway.
> Thank go there is still a bastion of democracy/fairness left in Uefa
Do you know who Platini is?
This is only because Europe cares about soccer. If this was basketball, ice hockey or baseball then I don't think Europe would care and would be the country to bribe
I am all in favor of a global revolution to overthrow capitalism with a solidarity of workers of the world. But I think we can have a non-corrupt FIFA without one.
The world is a reflection of the laws of physics. When complex self propagating systems coexist in an environment with limited material competition arises, and corruption is simply one inevitable result of that.
> Thank go there is still a bastion of democracy/fairness left in Uefa
To be a bit cynical on this, I'm going to say that UEFA is worried the international scene will infringe on the European league scene.
They've found something to be outraged about, but the reality is more about the threat to their own bottom line than it is about the international game.
This is probably at least partially true. And they know that if they get together with South America, they can easily replace FIFA with another governing structure.
I'm a bit surprised to be downvoted on this, except maybe that it's seen as an attack on Europe.
There have been other attempts at a league superior to the individual national leagues -- like a permanent champions league. Establishment of anything more regular at the international level would be one more way this could be accomplished.
Each European league (and leagues from other confederations) has a vested interest in keeping the World Cup not just "free" but rare as well.
The time to be on the high horse against FIFA isn't 2026, it was against he labor conditions in Qatar, or the corruption to award the 2018 and 2022 hosts, or any number of other things.
However correct they are, they only complain when it's against their own self interest.
Reminiscent of the resource curse, the observation that many countries "blessed" with an abundance of natural resources actually fare pretty badly (including lots of corruption).
The Super League was a wonderful idea! Imagine watching the best teams in Europe playing each other multiple nights a week for months on end! Instead you’d rather watch 1 or 2 teams spend 10x more than anyone else and dominate the league every season. How is that fun or exciting? Would you rather watch a Bayern v Bremen match or a Bayern v Chelsea match? Or PSG, is it fun watching them not even bother playing their best guys in games against Lyon?
It makes no sense to me that people favored the (much) worse product because “tradition”.
Easy: it was going to be a (mostly) closed competition.
Competition gets boring real fast when it is always the same handful of teams. When there are no real consequences to losing, winning becomes meaningless.
Bayern v Chelsea matches stop being as interesting when every game is a Bayern v Chelsea match and most of them have no real impact either way. On the other hand, football becomes most interesting when it's a Bayern v Bremen and Bremen wins. People love an underdog after all, and nothing is more exciting than seeing an elite team take the game for granted and being punished for it.
The Super League is only a more interesting product from the "big name play ball" perspective. It is great when you want to make a fortune in tv rights and licensing, but it sucks for everyone who cares about football as a sport.
That’s the same justification my German friend made. I guess it’s American viewpoint vs European. The Super League would have been like the NFL in the US, where every team can beat any other any given night. That’s much more appealing to me, but to each their own.
The NFL is so balanced not because it’s a “super” league but because every team has the same salary cap. The best team and the worst team all have to spend essentially the exact same amount of money on their players, ensuring that no team can buy their way to the top.
Even there it’s still not really true that the best team can lose to the worst team in any given night. The best team is generally favored a lot and justifiably so. In soccer teams can also be quite mismatched and a lucky goal by the worse team can be the only score and win the match.
As a lapsed NY Jets fan, I disagree -- competent ownership and management is required more than good draft picks. To wit: Tom Brady was drafted at 199 overall, but the Jets' last two QB picks (Zach Williams and Sam Darnold) are both journeyman-level players.
I'm more of a hockey guy, which has a much stricter salary cap than the NFL, and the Edmonton Oilers are instructive here: they had a bunch of first overall picks 10 years ago (including multiple franchise players), but the team itself wasn't competitive until management changed and could build a cohesive team.
Bad management will certainly tank a team, but he’s right. The draft structure also helps to even out the teams.
In the NFL, winning is more about quality management and coaching (and some luck) than anything else. Which is a good thing. Leagues where winners are decided mostly on who is able to spend the most on players are lopsided and kind of lame.
The NFL is an association of billionaires that captured a sport and created rules to keep scarcity going and not let either of them ruin it for the others. In football we already have oil magnates buying individual clubs here and there, but at least they are very diluted among the real clubs.
I agree with you, but I think it’s worth pointing out that the NFL is balanced because they tried to make it balanced - the salary cap, draft, revenue sharing, etc. are all outcomes of that plan, not the prime motivators themselves.
In the Champions League the top, let’s say, 16 teams can all beat each other, so that part of the NFL experience is still there. The thing is that these top 16 teams change every year and there is no clear definition which clubs are top teams at the moment. But that’s the charm of it.
Football is very tribal. People want to dream that their local club have a shot to participate and maybe win the Champions league. Think of Leicester and Girona. In the Netherlands there is now a club called NEC and they have a shot to qualify for it, and that by itself is a historic moment for the club.
Exactly. Look at Bodø/Glimt from northern Norway. In 2017 they played in Norwegian 2. division and in 2020 they played AC Milan in the Europa League and won the top division in Norway and it's only been better since. BUT, this too will end at some point and another team will take their spot at the top. Maybe my team that has been struggling for decades will get their shit together and start winning something? That is much more exciting than seeing the same 10-20 money doped teams play matches all over the world to generate even more money.
Imagine never having any relegation risk for being crap.
Without divisions and removal of risk, what's the point?
Without the chance to work at a lower level and through simply being good, getting a team promoted how are you supposed to inspire? NFL, is both the least and the most American sport there is.
PSG has won 8 of the last 10 Ligue 1. Bayern 9 of the last 10 Bubdesliga. Barcelona/Real Madrid 9 of the last 10 La Liga.
That’s exciting? There’s 50+ teams in those leagues that stand NO shot of ever winning a championship, ever. The argument I’ve seen in this thread is either 1) it’s thrilling when my favorite average team upsets the backups of one of the powerhouses and 2) it’s exciting to get relegated and then come back.
You know what’s even more exciting…winning a championship. And every August every NFL fan starts with the hope and belief that this is their year. NFL has Leicester-lite situations every few years. Patriots were worst 2 years ago, lose in the championship the next year.
I will give credit to the Premier League - they’re doing it right. As mentioned, too 15-20 teams are competitive and could win a title in a given year. You know why it’s the best league - they set up a revenue sharing model similar to US leagues. Equal chance of winning = most excitement for fans of the entire league.
You can fuck right off trying to create a closed league where only a "chosen" few clubs take part.
It might just be an entertainment spectacle to you but for others it's very tied into local identity.
The idea that outside money men should be allowed to come in and destroy open competition is highly offensive to me.
The best years in football are when a smaller club gets a run of luck and beats the big boys. Or when one of the super clubs gets relegated and their fans have experience a season or two in the lower leagues.
You're not taking that away from us without a fight!
AFCON is already a thing and while it is decently popular it’s no where near the world cup or the euros. Part of that is that it takes place during the domestic club competitions though.
African teams are definitely up and coming. South Africa was surprisingly poor in the tournament but there were some decent performances by African teams, notably Morocco. Cape Verde also punched (or kicked?) way above their weight.
CONCACAF extremely weak. They didn't even say they'll boycott. They're likely just as corrupt as the other countries and may still vote it through, they're just sad they were not consulted.
Americans (Kushner et al.) looked at an opportunity to make money and found a willing ally in Infantino, and they took it.
I am Asian. Our country FA is corrupt as hell too. The way I read this, FIFA needs a yes from roughly half of the member nations to go forward with this. Yes to a offer (not promise) to receive $20m. I can totaly see the top brass of our FA, 10-20 people at most, looking at this as an opportunity to earn easy several million bucks and voting yes.
So it used to be that there were pre-tournament games, to qualify.
A lot of countries... they wouldn't qualify. They'd play an ample amount of pre-tournament games though.
Now, you seen more countries qualify, and you see countries who used to not qualify, dropping ASAP (in the deathmatch 16th matches, right after poule).
So what did we get out of that? A few matches during the tournament, and they were quite frankly meaningless.
These countries which made it to deathmatch 1/16th gained nothing. It is a scam, a trick. They think they gained fame, but they really have not, since the barrier to get to the deathmatch has been lowered.
Furthermore, if you follow a corrupt scheme, you can ensure a country like Argentina is going to have the least chance to end up with strong opponents.
No, mr. Infantino. We need less corruption in FIFA, not more.
* We don't want a drink break to watch commercials..
* ..or a 30 min break with a bunch of actors (who sing with autotune) when your own rules say it may only be a 15 min break.
* We don't want red cards commutated or revoked.
* We don't want star players not getting yellow or red card, when other players are getting one for the same foul.
* We don't want a yellow card being reversed, then given to an opponent, based on 'identity mismatch'.
* We don't want to see racism or political statements.
* We don't want to see rugby, we want to see football.
* We want to see fair-play, with a meaningful VAR which can be called by the captain or coach of each team twice (getting back their call if agreed on).
You don't need a for-profit in your chain to fix the above. You need a non-profit with a non-corrupt chair, and you've proven you're not fit. Red card for you, mr. Infantino. You're out, arrivederci.
> Now, you seen more countries qualify, and you see countries who used to not qualify, dropping ASAP (in the deathmatch 16th matches, right after poule).
> So what did we get out of that? A few matches during the tournament, and they were quite frankly meaningless.
The answer for FIFA is of course money. More countries, more games, more money.
But the non-cynical answer is that all of those countries got to see their teams play 3 World Cup games. Some got to see more than that. I would bet that many of those countries’ citizens are very happy with the expanded tournament, and good for them. We also got Cape Verde this year, who many people around the world were excited for.
>>* We want to see fair-play, with a meaningful VAR which can be called by the captain or coach of each team twice (getting back their call if agreed on).
I am not sure what your problem with Argentina is, but with a meaningful VAR, Cucurella would have been sent off and Enzo Fernandez would have stayed on the pitch. I am sick of the anti-Argentina racist campaign. Just follow the amount of yellow and red cards they were given in their last three games in the WC.
Fernandez deserved each of his yellow cards. Especially the second for that reckless and dangerous tackle.
Cucurella did not violate the rule. He touched his mouth for an instant. The rule is not “if you ever touch your mouth you get ejected”, which is why VAR didn’t do anything and neither did the ref on the field.
I generally have nothing against Argentina but they were wildly outplayed in the last game, they were disrespectful, and Messi’s appeal to the ref to try to get Cucurella ejected was shameful.
CONCACAF and UEFA almost always vote together, but they are far outnumbered by every other region and FIFA only needs a majority vote for a rule to pass. You're excluding about half of the planet by only mentioning Africa.
CONCACAF and UEFA together is 96 out of 211 votes. They've since being joined by the Asian Football Confederation for a large majority against. And no reason to suspect the bung Infantino offers for voting in his direction is anywhere near enough to sway CONMEBOL.
The African confederation is actually marginally smaller than the European one. It also has no shortage of internal disagreements, brings in very little revenue, and the bigger nations are ultimately going to look at where the money is and see that it isn't trying to plough ahead without Europe, Asia or the United States.
CONCACAF was actually one of Infantino's best hopes, a mixture of the US, a few nations that hugely benefited from Infantino's other world cup reforms and a few that have no realistic prospect of World Cup football but would love $40m in return for voting a particular way...
Since AFC have now joined them[0][1], FIFA no longer have the votes for this to pass.
[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/ce345l6kg6ro - "Uefa - the body that governs European football - has 55 votes. Concacaf, which oversees football in North, Central America and the Caribbean, has 35 and Asia has 46." which only leaves 75 votes from the 211 and he'd need 106.
[1] I've no idea why the BBC doesn't properly capitalise UEFA or CONCACAF. I assume it's either some weird style guide or the subeditors are having another day off.
On the capitalization, it seems the BBC will always use title case for acronyms (Nasa, Nato) and all caps for initialisms (ATM, SNP). I did try to search for SQL to see if the Beeb thinks it should be read as Sequel or Es-que-el, but their search refuse to show exact results and keeps giving me articles about the Scottish National Party instead.
"Where you would normally pronounce the abbreviation as a string of letters - an initialism - use all capitals with no full stops or spaces (eg FA, UNHCR). However, our style is to use lower case with an initial cap for acronyms where you would normally pronounce the set of letters as a word (eg Maga, Sars, Aids, Nasa, Opec, Apec)."
UEFA leaving already leaves a pretty big gaping hole in any future FIFA tournament, since it'd exclude Spain (1st), England (3rd), France (4th), Norway (5th), Belgium (6th), Switzerland (joint 7th), Portugal (13th), Netherlands (17th), Germany (18th), Croatia (20th), Sweden (27th), Austria (28th), Bosnia and Herzegovina (29th).
That's 75% of the final four and of the quarterfinals, 44% of the round of 16. Then if you add CONCACAF into the mix, it comes to 63% of the RO16.
Wondering about this. 10 years ago it was true but Brazil are a shadow of their former selves, and Argentina without the likes of Messi and Aguero aren't the same. I know they reached the final but Messi almost had the golden boot.
Wouldn't be surprised to see Africa surpass South America in the next decade
Yes, it's just been won by one! For me one of the gaping holes in this tournament was Italy. That would have been unthinkable years ago. It is strange seeing New Zealand there but not Russia, but there are political reasons for that.
The issue is every federation - whether they never qualified for the world cup or won final(s) - gets one vote. This has become a big issue, with any proposal to give more money (even if that entails compromising on key principles) to federations (by making more money) is almost certain to pass because of very poor FAs that need it / want it desperately.
Yeah, but if UEFA stays true to their word, passing this proposal is guaranteed to lead to the end of a FIFA-led world cup. They have the votes to privatize the world cup, but in doing so would destroy the very thing they are trying to privatize, and likely destroy FIFA as a whole
Meanwhile UEFA can just get together with South America and form a new governing body for a new world cup
The US just hosted as main host again after only 30 years. Brazil waited from 1950 to 2014 to host again, a full 64 years, and it’s arguably one of the countries most cared about in soccer.
Hosting the tournament has nothing to do with it. America is a lucrative market, and on top of that, FIFA can get away with charging insane ticket prices. I'm Canadian and soccer is my primary sport. Unfortunately, on a global level, nobody really cares about Canada or US when it comes to soccer.
