FIFA Must Vote Again on the 2022 World Cup

tc811

tc811

Resident Evo-Web Retard
9 January 2008
United States
Arsenal FC
It's time for all of you knowledgeable and older folk to chime in, especially Albi 2010.

Now FIFA must vote again on 2022 World Cup

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...0/FIFA-vote-2022-World-Cup.html#ixzz1Nx4U9ti4

The damning dossier: Stacks of US dollars fell out on the table… it was stunning

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-bribe-revealed-Bahamas-FA.html#ixzz1Nx4ZhqdF

Qatar DID buy the World Cup! Suspended Warner accuses FIFA as Blatter faces music


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...a-emergency-meeting-called.html#ixzz1Nx4pO6Sr


Fifa in crisis live blog: Platini rules out coup as FAs call for an election delay

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/may/31/fifa-in-crisis-live-blog
 
Surprise surprise !! FIFA is not a democracy !!

Do you know any democratic country where a president is four time elected in a one-candidate election ? And aged of 75 years ?
Come on it is now years that we know that Blatter clinks to the chair that is his, and won't let it, and is ready to use media manipulation to achieve.
This is a real shame and no one cares
 
allezlinter said:
Surprise surprise !! FIFA is not a democracy !!

Do you know any democratic country where a president is four time elected in a one-candidate election ? And aged of 75 years ?
Come on it is now years that we know that Blatter clinks to the chair that is his, and won't let it, and is ready to use media manipulation to achieve.
This is a real shame and no one cares
Click to expand...
:WORSHIP:
 
allezlinter said:
This is a real shame and no one cares
Click to expand...

Spot on, too many Football Associations remain silent. It's a ludicrous situation to be in, Fifa don't care what people think and have pretty much said as much.
 
I can't believe he took credit for the success of the UEFA Champions League this year. UEFA has been an ambitious organisation with its own rules, but that's because it has its own management and administration. Blatter is just a corrupt man that seems to have so much money...
 
Only at FIFA can there be one candidate in an election and he still doesnt pick up 16% of the votes.
 
FIFA must be reorganized, Qatar 2022 is not the only problem, they also don't want to allow use of challenge like in NFL, at least in World Cup games, but then they couldn't control who gets to the final with referee 'mistakes'
 
Don't know about being so knowledgeable tc811 . ;)

Football has been riddled with corruption for a long time back to the time of Il Duce fixing results in the 1934 World Cup, Hungary being denied in 1954 by some extremely off refereeing decisions in the final inc. Puskas's perfectly legitimate equalizer with full time approaching.

Brazil being kicked out of 1966 with Argentina then getting a German referee in their quarter final and Uruguay playing Germany getting an English referee.......

And Sir Stanley Rous though he used to be a headmaster at my old school here in Watford was a stick in the mud.

As with cricket under the MCC, rugby union under the IRB the administrators mainly from England I am disappointed to say had a rather parochial view of developing the sport globally.

Then we can go into 1978 with a military junta celebrating to 2002 with it's dubious refereeing allowing South Korea to get to the semi finals and so on and so forth.

They are completely incompetent in every respect from comments like Blatter's about women footballers to members like Grondona comments on Jews being unfit to referee to Warner's racist comments towards the English.

But they can do this because they are untouchable. The countries they come from are mired in corruption and a lack of transparency themselves.

They are children of such systems and see nothing wrong in what they do. And the problem is not just this generation but the next one because all the current incumbents are grooming their children who are middle aged by now to take over their spots in rubber stamp elections.

Bloater distributes bribes himself in the form of grants and aid to extremely poor associations and using the entirely equitable system of 1 vote 1 member maintain his grip on power.

His subordinates like Warner for instance then distribute this to their friend and use it as a weapon against their opponents. And because most of the world is entenched in corruption and lack of democracy witness the appalling horrors in Syria at present it reflects the world.

FIFA continually turns a blind eye to these places because their own members come from the ruling classes of such places.

And the system will continue because of the fortunes to be made associated with football. The gravy train of luxuries, world travel, free tickets and other salubrious gifts makes it a hotbed for taking bribes and gifts.

Who would want to give it up ?

The IOC was mired in corruption as well at one stage under the former fascist Samaranch which culminated in the scandal of Salt Lake City where the bribery was exposed by a vigilant media leading to the IOC being shown up for what it was a collective of old men out of touch with reality ,taking gifts in granting games to cities.

Being thoroughly discredited and embarassed reform was undertaken such as not allowing IOC members to visit bid cities who previosuly engaged in the nefarious practice of offering all sorts of riches to these people.

The same should and could happen to FIFA. However it is an organization even bigger than the IOC where vested self interest means that they will shut up shop as a bloc to all inquiries and demands they reform.

They are indeed more powerful as has been shown in South Africa thn sovereign governments forcing the RSA administration to pick up the costs , leave them in debt whilst creaming off the profits of sponsors no doubt some of which ends up in private bank accounts in Switzerland.

They can not even be investigated in Switzerland as a non profit making organzation another clever move from their former executive.

So they despite being grossly out of touch as with regards to technology in matches and a more equitable treatment of fans seem impervious to any criticism and pressure to change.

We saw it with Bloaters re-election. It was a farce almost reminiscent of a Politburo election yet Bloater lacked any embarassment or humility afterwards. It's as if it's business as usual.

Not that his opponent Bin Hammam is any better. What with journalists being arrested in Qatar, absolutely no doubt bribes were given , Grondona is alleged to have received some $4M in the Argentine press and so on it just shows the calibre of individuals within the organization.

And because of it's power people like Beckenbauer who might show more backbone in his role at the DFB make toadying comments towards Bloater.

And then you look at possible sucessors like Platini ? Also mired in the past in terms of technology, a new world calendar for the game and so on.

That they can get away with this is because of the intrinsic appeal of football. No matter who might be running it international events still would attract huge audiences and sponsors.

You do not need to be a genius to run the organization and make a financial sucess of it. Hence Bloater is secure in that aspect too and even more sickeningly wants to make even more money from events like the WC recently demanding that in countries where it is free to air people ought to pay per view.

The world's game ? Deny access to the millions of poor unfortunates who could not afford to watch ?

Fair Play, Respect are a hollow joke played on the masses of people who love the game while the real game is being played behing closed doors , in secret ballots and under the table deals.

The whole system needs reform with open transparent ballots, committee members being unable to visit host cities, an independent ethics committee to oversee abuses, an independent financial body to distribute the monies appropiately and not on the basis of favouritism in return for votes and many other recommendations.

Will it happen ? There may be a cosmetic move towards it until sponsors decide to withdraw as that is all that counts at FIFA.

Will sponsors do that ? The potential effect of withdrawing is probably more deleterious to them as no doubt some other sponsors would happily take their place.

Frankly I cannot see unless members spill the beans on each other which they have decided not to do in order to protect their cosy club, any real change occurring at all.

It will be the same people making the same decisions in perpetuity.

I have absolutely no doubt Qatar 2022 was bought and even Russia 2018 where rich oligarchs like Abramovich sucking the blood of ordinary Russians, no doubt offered gifts, stays in hotels and yachts, women and so forth and in the end they will benefit because the construction projects for infrastructure will be taken by companies they own.

Rarely do such events benefit the local people. We saw it in South Africa where townships were demolished and people have not been rehoused. street vendors arrested for selling non licensed FIFA products etc etc.

And the FA could breakway and be joined by the USSF , Australians perhaps Germany, the Scandinavians but beyond it ?

Brazil is run by the corrupt Teixeira, Argentina by Grondona. And they are big draws to the global audience.

We are stuck unless a miracle happens.
 
Last edited:
Albi said:
Bloater distributes bribes himself in the form of grants and aid to extremely poor associations and using the entirely equitable system of 1 vote 1 member maintain his grip on power.
Click to expand...
yep. it's actually quite ironic (and sad) how fifa applies an absolutely democratic principle (it's actually THE most basic and ancient democratic principle, dating back to the roman "comitia curiata"... "one head, one vote") to achieve an absolutely autocratic outcome.
it goes to show how the spirit of democracy lies in the interpretation of the rules, and not in the rules themselves.

however something in your post caught my attention albi. u talked about secret ballots.... was the blatter election held through a secret ballot? because if that's the case, then the electoral result becomes even more worrying.

let me explain. i heard blatter got 186 votes out of 203. that's a huge electoral success.
now, if such a wide consensus came from a voting method wich reveals the preference of each voter (say, by a show of hands), then this electoral result wouldn't be really shocking (nobody wants to stand against "the leviathan", if u know what i mean).

but secret ballots are aimed to prevent precisely this sort of situations. the confidentiality of the voters choices is a guarrantee, a protection from any form of intimidation or corruption. it's the most democratic manifestation of free will applied to an election.

so, if blatter got 186 votes out of 203 in a secret ballot, then that means that the voters really wanted him to lead Fifa. and that's quite scary, because it would mean that blatter is only the tip of the iceberg, and that the whole organization is rotten and corrupted.

let me ask u again. was the election really held through a secret ballot?
 
Last edited:
Secret ballot or not, the whole organization is rotten and corrupted.
I've worked professionally with the Belgian FA. Never saw such a show of incompetence and amateurism. Really, really worrying.
 
It was a secret ballot lo zio but why they even bothered with the pretence I don't know.

It's amazing how they use the institution of democratic principles and turn those on their heads....

But look what happened to our poor FA. :P Like the poor Gracchi brothers.

And with yet another farcical plan for FIFA reform involves a former politician, tenor and Johann Cruyff. How long Cruff would last with his forthright views who knows ?

He Bloater is thumbing his nose once again at everyone showing who is in charge. And of course the reform will not involve taking a close look at the bids from Russia and Qatar.

I'm sure that great Italian playwright Carlo Goldoni were he around now would have written a scathing satire as he used to on those persons so firmly entrenched in power that they became overweeningly arrogant and cocksure of themselves.
 
Last edited:
yeah, this farce kinda sounds like a sathirical commedia indeed (btw, references to roman history and italian theatre in the same post. i'm impressed! that "knowledgeable" label tc811 gave u is certainly well deserved ;) ).

anyway i was thinking, maybe they reached some sort of a gentlemen's agreement (although gentlemen is not the most appropriate word i reckon :P ).
the voters agree to give blatter a strong support in a blind votation (secret ballot), in order to give blatter a more stable governance and save the image of fifa (a poor electoral result would have turned blatter's election into even more of a farce).
and blatter accepts not to run at the next elections.

i'm just thinking out loud here, this is just a wild guess and i have nothing to support this theory, but it would explain why they decided for a secret ballot, why blatter got so many votes and also why blatter stated this will be his last term as fifa president.
still it's really a disgraceful farce played by terrible actors.
 
Well the audit group with Kissinger and Cruijff might suprise a couple of people.
Don't underestimate Cruijff, he is a very stubborn person and had a great sense of justice.
Kissinger participated in a similar audit about the Olympics and is known to be a very, very big soccer fan.. on top of that Kissinger has his own company who works for Coca Cola, Fiat and other big companier.This is important because the big sponsors are beginning to be fed up with all the corruption stories.

Blatter and co might worry about this Kissinger, Cruijff an co (don't know about Placido Domingo...).
What
 
Kissinger is one of the most corrupt people in the world, know your history. I thought it was a joke when I first heard it.
 
Gab_ said:
Kissinger is one of the most corrupt people in the world, know your history. I thought it was a joke when I first heard it.
Click to expand...

You put it nice and short. Straight to the point. I agree with you.
 
In don't agree with much Kissinger did when he was state secretary and supported people like Pinochet and Videla. That was cynical foreign policy, and i didn't like that at all.

But i doubt if Kissinger is corrupt, can you prove that? Did he get bribes or something?
 
Kissinger is an utter crook, he was responsible for wrecking the peace negotiations on Vietnam in 1967, him and Nixon's "peace with honour" left over 33,000 US citizens dead and one can only begin to imagine the number of Vietnamese killed post 68.

He pushed for the carpet bombing of Cambodia (40,000 dead for no militarial purpose) sanctioned the killing President Allende in Chile because he was "too democratic", and encouraged Indonesia to massacre the East Timorese. Politics of the 1970s-80s might not appear to have a massive bearing on sports organisations of the current era, but how can someone so devoid of morals be a viable investigator. The inclusion of this morally bankrupt 88 year old in this whitewash of an investigation is beyond a joke.
 
cfdh_edmundo said:
Kissinger is an utter crook, he was responsible for wrecking the peace negotiations on Vietnam in 1967, him and Nixon's "peace with honour" left over 33,000 US citizens dead and one can only begin to imagine the number of Vietnamese killed post 68.

He pushed for the carpet bombing of Cambodia (40,000 dead for no militarial purpose) sanctioned the killing President Allende in Chile because he was "too democratic", and encouraged Indonesia to massacre the East Timorese. Politics of the 1970s-80s might not appear to have a massive bearing on sports organisations of the current era, but how can someone so devoid of morals be a viable investigator. The inclusion of this morally bankrupt 88 year old in this whitewash of an investigation is beyond a joke.
Click to expand...

I know all this, this is called "real politik". I don't agree with all of that, but it is what the USA did at the time of the Cold War (the USSR and China did exactly the same things by the way), but i don't see why this man should not be qualified in his role for FIFA. His cynicism can be a plus point for this audit.


PS: i consider myself rather left of the centrum and i don't agree at all with Nixon's and Kissinger's foreign policy at the time, but i still haven't seen a single piece of evidence that Kissinger is corrupt and not suited for this audit. To put this in perspective, what Obama did to Osama is not better than Kissingers foreign policy...is Obama corrupt? I don't think so...
 
In my opinion what Kissinger did was significantly worse. Both Obama and Kissigner gave the go ahead for the execution of a foreign "leader". The difference was Allende was a democratically elected head of state who had never posed a mortal danger to Kissinger/Nixon's electorate, Chile under Allende never attacked (or threatend to attack) the USA as a country or its citizens. Bin Laden on the other hand wasn't a head of state, instead he was the figurehead of nationless (non-soverign) organisation, he continually threatened the USA and had already attacked 3000 of its citizens.

I'm not condoning what happened to Bin Laden, but what happened to Allende was significantly worse in terms of morality, and also much more clearly in violation of international law.

Personally I don't really like Obama, but I think his much much better than Kissinger and Nixon. He hasn't made Iraq even worse than before he took office (unlike Kissinger in Vietnam) its the same level it was under Bush, he hasn't invaded another country in the region and carpet bombed it (unlike Kissinger in Cambodia) - in fact he has deliberatly kept the US out of Libya, and he hasn't ordered the execution of a democratically elected head of state.
 
Still you haven't give me a single argument why Kissinger is unfit to do an audit about FIFA.
What he did was immoral but it was not corrupt.
I do like Obama, but it's easy to be better than Kissinger and Nixon (i dislike them both) at present than during the cold war. I'm pretty sure that Obama would have done exactly the same thing as Kissinger.
Besides that, the fact that Bin Laden is supposed to be a worse human being than Allende, does not make any difference to me. Bin Laden should have been judged...Obama acted the same way as Bin Laden and Kissinger. The victim is irrelevant, one should judge the act.

If i kill somebody in cold blood, who the victim is does not vindicate my act...it can influence an eventual sentence or punishment. But it does not change anything about the guilt...
 
gerd said:
If i kill somebody in cold blood, who the victim is does not vindicate my act...it can influence an eventual sentence or punishment. But it does not change anything about the guilt...
Click to expand...

I think this ever so slightly overly simplistic. If a husband is abusing his wife and she kills him, is she then guilty of murder ? If a police officer goes to a bank raid and the thief shoots at him but the police officer returns fire and kills the thief is that murder ? I would be highly suprised if in either scenario the wife or the police officer was charged with murder - in fact I would be surprised if they were found guilty of any crime. Even on a more mundane level, if you were in a bar in Brussel and a drunk pulled a knife on you, went to attack you but you punched him, his head hit concrete and he died, would you be convicted of murder ? Very unlikely in my opinion as a clear argument of self defence could be made. There are degrees of seperation in terms of crimes, the USA had been undertaking a massive effort to get Bin Laden since 2001. He himself said he was responsible for 9/11 and stated his desire to repeat the attacks. From the USA's point of view the killing of Bin Laden could be said to be a form of self defence. He had attacked the USA, killed 3000 of their citizens and vowed to do it again. This is utterly different from Salvador Allende who had never attacked the US or it citizens, and in fact hadn't attacked anyone. In an ideal world Bin Laden would have had some sort of judicial trial, but in an ideal world 9/11 wouldnt have happened and all nations and people would get on with each other. But to compare the Allende and Bin Laden situations is, in my opinion, deeply flawed.

gerd said:
Still you haven't give me a single argument why Kissinger is unfit to do an audit about FIFA.
What he did was immoral but it was not corrupt.
Click to expand...

There are two points in the above statement. First is your desire to have proof of Kissinger being unfit. Second is proof of him being corrupt.

Kissinger is unfit as he is an unconvicted war criminal, who has wreaked havoc all over Asia and Latin America. How can anyone with so much blood on his hands be in charge of an investigation of a federation if it is to have any legitimacy? Would Stalin have added legitimacy to an investigation of the UN in the 1950s? This is the most basic reason why he should not be involved.

Is Kissinger corrupt? Well the evidence in Hitchen's book would suggest he is. Additionally the massive gifts he received from Nelson Rockerfeller in the 1970s, at a time when Rockerfeller was involved in substantial tax avoidance and offshoring suggest all is not clean. There must also be major questions over his role in Watergate, given his presence in Nixon's administration - Kissinger was the key aid to the only US President forced from office due to illegal acts.

Kissinger is also inherently prejudiced, look at his comments here, made on official White House tapes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4633263.stm

I think all of these make him inappropriate to investigate such matters.

I do like Obama, but it's easy to be better than Kissinger and Nixon (i dislike them both) at present than during the cold war. I'm pretty sure that Obama would have done exactly the same thing as Kissinger.
Click to expand...

Is it really easier now than during the cold war? How so ? There might not be a nuclear face off or a massive conventional army to face down, but instead Obama has to a much more economically competitive China and also the threat from terrorism that isn't bounded by state borders and is far less predictable than the USSR. For example during the Cuban Missile Crisis the Americans and the Soviets were able to predict each others behaviour and understand that neither nation was likely to use nuclear weapons unless it was an absolute last resort. This just isn't true in the modern era, if groups like al qaeda have said on numerous times that if they have the means to cause massive casualties (e.g. with a nuclear or bio weapon) they will do it. And Obama has to do this on the backdrop of a massive economic decline within the US. 30-40 years ago the Americans were comfortably the number one economy in the world, they could afford lavish expenses such as a massive Space Exploration program, these days they just cant afford such spending, they can no longer afford to fritter away billions on frivolous, militaristic campaigns.

It's hard to say if Obama would have done the same as Kissinger at the time, he may have but there is no way of knowing. I think he's slightly more compassionate than Kissinger, and from the point of view of the American electorate, would he have continued the Vietnam war post 67-68 ? At the cost of an additional 30,000 us lives (number of troops KIA post 1967) ? I doubt it, myself.
 
Kissinger is a dangerous lunatic is only aim is to push this "New World Order" Now, FIFA gives him the platform to spread his poison. Obama isn`t a threat he just tries too hard with his "Gobal citizenship " his cleverness isn`t genuine. He`s like a bloke trying to get into a bird`s warm spot. I`m very disturb by Kissinger involvement Think the anti-Christ will use Football to spread his fame .
 
It's absurd that i'm defending this guy, because i agree with most of what you say both, but i think you are bot simplistic.

Kissinger a war criminal? Yes, of course but so are Churchill, Roosevelt, every American president who ever went to war and every leader whose country went to war...the notion 'war criminal' is as hollow as the notion 'terrorist'. Usually it is the winner who can use those notions for the loosers of a conflict. The Nazi's called the resistance also terrorists, we now call them liberation warriors...

Kissinger and Nixon only played the game they were supposed to play in the cold war, so did Kennedy (who has a much more positive image, but you should only think about Cuba to know that he was exactly the same as Nixon and Kissinger).

And Bebocq, Kissinger does not need football...football might need Kissinger, because whatever negative things there are to be said about him (lots, i agree), he is a damn smart person...

It might be true that it is not good for football's image that Kissinger will do an audit, be i think he is perfectly suited to do this audit.

Let's agree to disagree (slightly) on this matter, because let me be clear: i think Kissinger is indeed a crook, but so are 75% of people who had a similar job and had to go to war...of all the USA presidents i have known, there is perhaps only one who wasn't a crook: Jimmy Carter...most Americans consider him a bad president (although everybody agrees he did wonderfull things afterwards).
 
I don't know if they were all crooks, for instance Harold Wilson was UK Prime Minister (the equivalent of Tony Blair) at the time of Vietnam war. Lyndon Johnson, the US president at the time, was desprate to get the UK and other countries involved in Vietnam, as happened during the Korean War, but Wilson stood his ground and said no. He could see it was pointless and destined to become a tragic quagmire.

Also, I'm not a fan of Tito at all, but he avoided open conflicts, despite being encouraged by NATO and the Warsaw Pact, he placed Yugoslavia outside of both. Carter was far from a war criminal in the late 70s to early 80s. He removed atomic weapons from South Korea as soon as he was elected, consolidated this with SALT II. He didn't get drawn into a massive land invasion over the Tehran Embassy crisis, and he didn't put ground troops in to counter the Soviet Invastion of Afghanistan. In fact he hardly intervened at all in Afghanistan, it was only under Reagan when the USA began to really finance the anti-Soviet forces there.

There have been some noble, benevolent world leaders, even of the big countries. And one always has to be careful about tarring them all with the same brush, Nixon and Kissinger may be two cheeks of the same arse, but I think the likes of Wilson and Carter are cut from a different, more honourable cloth.

I just have a massive problem with FIFA, already deep in a moral malaise, appointing someone like Kissinger who has demonstrated abject immorality. If a world leader was required why not have one less tainted, like Carter, or hell even Clinton - far from perfect due to his smuttyness - is less tainted than Kissinger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom