Those are fair points. But the fact that funding is apparently tied to the discretion of the President, so that smaller Associations feel they have to support a particular president to get funding, is a sign of bad governance, leading to corruption. The funding distribution should not be centralised in the President, but should be set out in the FIFA’s by-laws, openly and transparently, so that it will not change depending on who the President is.
Yes, I know. But it worked better for the joke; Interpol is the one European law enforcement entity most Americans have heard of.
But thanks for for the ignorance-busting! (And I mean that comment sincerely, with no snark intended.)
Very well said. A lot of these smaller football associations are scared to death that a new President will drastically cut down on football development and investment in third world countries in favor of increasing the money that goes to Europe and South America. The ideal would be an anti-corruption crusader who is committed and promises to continue and increase the funding for footballing infrastructure in poorer countries - but that person doesn’t seem to exist in the upper levels of football.
So why can’t the smaller countries use their numbers to get the funding system entrenched in the FIFA bylaws, so it’s not discretionary in the President?
As stated upthread, most of what FIFA does is decided by the executive committee, which has 22 members. The only real thing that most countries can do is vote for President, and now (since 2011) vote for where the World Cup will be played.
So you need a President who is willing to propose and pass something in the executive committee that has the funding system (or at least a % of revenue or something) entrenched in the bylaws.
Of course the other thing is that those countries don’t really see the development fund in any threat as long as Blatter is in charge and don’t really care about the corruption charges. So they are mostly fine with the current status quo.
Even so, Blatter is 79. He won’t be there forever. A long view of the issue suggests de-personalising it by bylaws. How does the exec committee get chosen?
Has there been a vote for a World Cup host since then? Does anybody have a prediction on how such selections will go from now on; will they favor the established countries, up-and-coming smaller ones, or does it just mean there are now more people to bribe?
According to the FIFA home page, it looks like the Congress composed of all the members would have the authority to put the funding distribution into the FIFA statutes:
First, there’s the pragmatic matter of transition: if the President controls the funding, what do you think will happen to the funding for the first country to propose taking it out of the President’s hands?
But more importantly, remember, it’s not just the countries’ soccer programs that are being paid off (legally, and arguably legitimately); it’s the individuals who represent those countries at FIFA who are being massively (illegally and illegitimately) bribed. The cash-and-cocaine-wrapped-hookers aren’t going to fund Dominica’s soccer programs, a funding system intrenched in the bylaws won’t be providing such benefits for the individuals who vote on it. So how do you think they will vote? The FIFA dollars paying for fields in Botswana are a good excuse for the Botswanan FIFA representative to support the current regime, but the various perks ($2000/mo apartments for their dogs) that they get personally are a reason.
I am sure that another aspect of “suppose you’re the president of some insignificant . . . football association” is that when Unca Sepp gives your country money for “youth programs” or “football development,” you get to choose the company or organization that runs the programs, and more significantly, gets to collect the management fees for running the programs. If those companies happen to be run by your cousin or brother-in-law (who has a very clear idea as to who put him into place to run the program and collect the management fee), well, they have to be run by someone, don’t they. Thanks Unca Sepp.
While they have been problems, major ones, the money that FIFA has put in Africa has been put to good use. For instance in Zambia, where new facilities paid for by FIFA helped the National team go from unheralded to Champions of Africa. There have been problems there as well, but the net effect of Blatter and Co have been positive. This is a thing you have to understand, before you can get rid of him, rather than putting forth a cartoonish version of events.
Also, while Qatar WC award gets many detractors of FIFA hot under the collar… during the actual decision, Blatter voted for the US. The push for Qatar was led by Europeans, chiefly Platini. So forget that Qatar will lose the tournament if Blatter falls.
No joke. This is a real image of one of the ballots.
I think this explains Putin’s support of Blatter. He recognizes a kindred spirit.
Then how did Ali Bin al-Hussein get 73 votes in the first ballot?
I was wondering that myself. Apparently he withdrew before the official vote.
My understanding was that Prince Ali withdrew before the second ballot, having denied Blatter the supermajority needed for a win in the first.
I suspect that photo might be from another year. There was at least one time where Sepp was the only name on the ballot.
I would have more sympathy for the position of these small footballing countries if we could be sure the money was appropriately spent. All too often it is a corrupting influence.
I would also quibble with the statement “Blatter and his entourage”. This makes it sound like a few individuals surrounding Blatter at the top. I can virtually guarantee football at “lowly” youth levels in the Carribean and Africa(and further afield) is corrupt. There have been the occassional stories of corruption in African youth programmes. I think if this area was looked into further many, many people would be found taking bribes and kick-backs. In fact with recent changes UEFA made about club funding and spending this corruption at international youth level will only get worse.
Finally, football is a very inexpensive sport to take part in. Much of the funding at youth level isn’t really needed. Though I suspect others will disagree with this.
I agree with you that a lot of the revenues FIFA makes is being spilled on corrupt officials who skim their share. But it’s not all of it. The question is: If you have the choice between (1) the status quo, where some of the money is pockted by corrupt officials but a significant share is actually invested in developing football in poorer countries, and (2) a system of the kind UEFA seems to be having in mind, with a larger share being diverted to wealthy associations in Europe and South America - which of these two options will result in larger amounts being put to good use in poorer countries? I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that this is, in spite of all the losses to corruption, option 1. So there is a perfectly legitimate reason (even if it is, I agree, presumably not the main personal motivation for functionaries from poor countries) outside corruption to stick to the status quo.
I would, in fact, disagree with this, at least if we’re measuring “inexpensive” by reference to developing country standards. Of course you can play football on any open pasture in any African village. But if you want to have a proper pitch that’s maintained and kept in shape, then you’ll have to invest a little. Even a couple of million a year can make a big difference there in a developing country.
Football is inexpensive if you want to have an informal kickabout. On the other hand if you want anything resembling an organized structure that could get talented boys and girls to the top its expensive. You need infrastructure for playing and training. You need coaches and scouts and kits and kitmen and groundkeepers. Not to mention doctors, nutritionists, therapists. Which is going to cost money.
You are going to get that through either Government/sponsors or through FIFA. Problem is that the former only really come through once there is actually some sort of success to show. FIFA gives money in places where there is no infrastructure or history at all. I don’t doubt the Zambian FA lacks for sponsorship now after its teams success. SUcess which was in helped by FIFA monies.