How could technology detect homosexuality? By detecting people’s hormones?
Well to give you a feeling for what is possible in the west, All the venues at the main London Olympic were completed without a single death…repeat… not a single death. Qatar have something approaching 1000 and they’ve barely scratched the surface.
It may be that no Persian Gulf state is any better but that just strengthens the case for not taking the tournament to any of them until they can guarantee better standards.
If they can buy the best engineers to build kilometer high towers then they can also buy the best EHS project management and make life better for the workers. That they don’t is pretty damning.
No one has ever had the balls to back away from FIFA even though I doubt anyone doubts it is a corrupt, bribe ridden organisation.
A splinter group would be a start, but when the salaries of the players and officials are astronomical, how much support could it expect?
Im simply pointing out the buildup to the last 2 World Cups were fraught with scare story after scare story of the games being moved to another country, and at the end of the day the host country pulled through. The difference between those countries and Qatar is that Qatar has money to follow through on its promises, and 9 years to deliver on them.
I agree there needs to be an inquiry due to what appear to be irregularities as to whether to World Cup should still be held there, but CLAIMS the World Cup won’t be held there in '22 are speculative, at best.
IIRC the last time the World Cup was relocated was in 1986, from Colombia to Mexico, when it was clear Colombia was in the middle of a bloody civil war. Most likely Qatar will be a stable, secure location for the games in 2022-----they will just be held in the Winter. 
As Novelty Bobble said, this isn’t about press scare stories about stadiums and infrastructure not being ready, it’s about corruption. I’ve no doubt at all that Qatar have the money (and cheap expendable foreign labour) to host the World Cup and still have enough change to fund islamic extremists in Libya and Syria.
The BBC and The Times (London) both produced extensive evidence of corruption in FIFA. Sepp Blatter’s response? Get rid of a couple of potential rivals and laugh it off. And he can afford to, because of the ridiculous situation that the combined votes of Bhutan, Anguilla, The Cook Islands, Andorra, American Samoa, Tonga, Mongolia and San Marino carry more weight than those of Brazil, Germany, Spain, Italy, France, Argentina and England.
BTW, Colombia pulled out for economic reasons in 1986.
They will show naked pictures of men and look for X-rays of guys with boners.
By looking them up on Facebook?
It would need the UEFA bloc to go its separate way. If UEFA left, it would take away by far and away the most lucrative market with all the most lucrative leagues and most of the best international teams. In addition the club teams in UEFA are the ones that all the best South American and African players play for and they would refuse to release them for international fixtures. This would kill FIFA and mean that the other confederations would have no choice but to follow UEFA (though I’m sure some associations like the USSF would need no encouragement).
This biggest obstacle though is the disruption and uncertainty this would cause and the truth is all FIFA have to do to prevent this happening is to cut down on the outrageous behaviour such as the Qatar debacle, rather than having to institute the far-reaching reforms that are needed.
There is also talk that the European leagues could refuse to release their players for the 22 WC. Currently, leagues have an agreement with FIFA that they will release players for international duty, but that agreement expires in 2016. If they refuse to renew it with the same terms, they could theoretically keep 90% of the top players in the world out of the WC.
At the moment clubs must release plays for all international fixtures played on “international dates”, this isn’t subject to an agreement or a time limit, it’s something a club has to agree to as part of being the member of an association which is itself a member of FIFA.
The top European clubs have an agreement with FIFA which expires I believe in 2018 on issues such as insurance (against injury), the number of international dates and compensation to clubs. However even when that deal expires the basic requirement that clubs must release their players for international dates doesn’t.
International football is too popular and lucrative for FIFA to make any concessions on actually releasing players for the international fixture list. I think any breakaway body could not dispose of international football as it would weaken it too much.
Great opportunity for hundreds of less-heralded players to shine, then.
Hundreds of workers dying? Homophobia run rampant? Yup, that’s Islam for you.
Well, to be fair, most people complain about how unfair it is that the United Nations have 5 countries with a ‘veto’. So to create a similar situation in FIFA wouldn’t necessarily be a good idea. Why shouldn’t a member country have an equal vote (and what’s the alternative - population? veto power by countries that have won the World Cup? veto power by former WC hosts?)?
Most people? Don’t think so.
So you suggest that we stay with the current situation?
Do San Marino deserve an equal vote with Italy?
(I’ll conveniently ignore the fact that they scored the fastest ever World Cup goal)
As I said before, the point is about corruption. FIFA is a morally bankrupt organization full of people who are only concerned with lining their own pockets and Blatter epitomizes that. Have a look at what one of his ex-cronies Jack Warner did in the Caribbean.
What specifically about “Islam” leads to either of those things?
IMO, yes. Most people. When one country can block what the entire rest of the Security Council wants, people consider it deeply unfair.
Why not? Are they both not FIFA members?
Because corruption doesn’t happen in bodies where the “special countries” get vetos?
God, that was funny as fuck. (It was against England) 
As an aside, there is a kinda/sorta veto power in the footballing world. The International Football Association Board is the body that approves changes to the laws of the game. It has five members: The FAs of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, plus FIFA. FIFA has four votes, and the individual FAs one each. A rule change needs 6 votes to pass.
I’m English, and my reaction was laughter. It was almost surreal.
In the interests of Anglo-Scottish relations I will refrain from mentioning the following:
Frank Haffey
Stuart Kennedy
Peru
Iran
Costa Rica
Yabba Dabba Do
Willie Johnson
a draw with the Faroes
You’ll really shake 'em up when you win the world cup…
Toe Poke! There’s only one Jimmy Hill!
I was ten in 1978, and I really believed this:
That experience made me the man I am today 