I agree, and the South African winter was ideal for soccer. IIRC it even snowed a bit in one match.
It would be a start though…
Yes, I suppose it is and I don’t really have a problem with suggesting that tiny nations have less of a say. What exactly is wrong with saying that the countries with more amateur and professional participants get more of a say in how the game is governed?
In politics in my own country each MP has an equal say but because the size of the constituencies are fairly equal it doesn’t really matter. In the states I believe that California gets to cast 55 votes when it comes to the presidential election but Alaska only gets 3…how is that fair? By your logic shouldn’t each state hold equal power?
In rebuttal, I present the following argument:
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!
Now in image form.
China may be quickly going to have a greater say than most ;).
Besides, this would make things very strange - England, with its 11 levels (or so) of amateur and professional leagues, may have more votes than Spain, Germany, and Italy combined if using amateur and professional participants for determining say in governing.
The Electoral College is incredibly controversial. A lot of us would love to abolish it and go with the popular vote - one voter one vote.
And heck, in NATO every country gets one vote ;).
Intranational politics have always been seen as very different from International politics. International organizations tend to do the one country, one vote thing - but some have instituted vetoes based on relative power at some specified time.
CONMEBOL (South America) backs Blatter - Reuters | Breaking International News & Views
The race is basically over at this point.
[quote=“ISiddiqui, post:85, topic:713623”]
The Electoral College is incredibly controversial. A lot of us would love to abolish it and go with the popular vote - one voter one vote. QUOTE]
Which would be equivalent to one state one vote.
With Blatter’s blatant bribery he already won with the Asian and African votes in his pocket.
CONMEBOL has only ten members of the 209 associations affiliated to FIFA but its member nations have won ten out of the twenty World Cups that have been played.
Oceania have got eleven members and none of them has even managed to beat Scotland in a World Cup match, let alone come close to winning the thing…
Yet still carry more weight when it comes to voting.
I’d be interested in an answer to that as well, do you think one state one vote for president is a good system?
As I’ve pointed out intranational decision making is a far different beast than international decision making. I can’t think of an international board that doesn’t have one country, one vote - only some of them have vetos in place.
Perhaps commenting on US elections was an error on my part - but internal decision making of countries is very different than countries deciding among themselves - for one, US states have far less sovereign power than countries. (Of course, I hasten to add the alternative is states with more people get higher votes - so China, India, and United States would have the highest votes).
To paraphrase Montgomery Burns: “I’d give everything I have for just a little more of it.”
You mean because intranational decision making largely works and international largely doesn’t precisely because of these assinine representation systems?
The only reason it “largely works” is because the divisions are, by design, fully subordinate to the central authority. Asking to give up sovereign authority isn’t usually problematic.
But all I’m hearing is complaints that India gets the same vote as Belgium. How would you structure FIFA? Mind, you’d have to get the Indias, as well as the South Koreas, Ivory Coasts, etc. to jump on board any proposal.
If that’s aimed at me, I don’t believe I’ve mentioned India or Belgium.
Lets try another sport:
Does Sweden deserve to have an equal say to India in cricket affairs?
What’s your actual idea for FIFA? Stop posting hypos and answer the question.
Online, secret vote for all members of the national FA’s. That elects a committee and chair every 5 years. One fixed-term per chair
Major decisions on permanent rule changes proposed by the committee and put to the same people as a referendum, simple majority needed.
World cup to have a fixed continental rota with the regions deciding themselves which country to pick. (or again let the people decide)
All fairly simple and transparent and cheap. Of course that strips a lot of power from FIFA because it actually asks the opinion of the people in the game that play and manage at a local level …they wouldn’t like that.
ETA - and FIFA don’t get to keep any money at all. A small amount of working capital allowed but everything else goes to football development. (they currently have multi-billion dollar assets for some reason)
All members of the national FA’s? It actually isn’t that difficult to game that system - just add more members of your FA. For the United States Soccer Federation, for instance, there are many ways to become a member of USSF:
http://www.ussoccer.com/about/federation-services/resource-center/membership
And regardless of the thousands and thousands of voters, any attempts to make it based on “online” voting disenfranchises those who live in poorer countries which are less connected (whereas North American and European countries would have mass campaigns to get even the smallest amateur league to vote - and it’d be very easy for them to do so).
For any given problem, perfect is the enemy of better. As it stands now the FA members of those poorer countries have exactly zero input and zero chance of input. In what way would my proposed system be any worse for them?
How exactly do they have zero input? They have an FA that represents them - the FA that they are members of. I’d argue that a better system is having the FA’s vote on behalf of their members.
Their F.A.'s are on the take, they are corrupt. That was the whole point of discussing this in the first place.
If you are claiming that the smaller country F.A.'s are voting at FIFA in line with their members wishes and for the benefit of their members, and not just to line their own pockets then fine, you are free to believe it.
I don’t, not for a second…Jack Warner?
And if these poor countries are set up to be able to register memberships to an FA then surely they are able run a simple election slip past them at the same time?
The FIFA leadership is being propped up by bribes and corruption. I’d favour any system that gives greater power to the people at the grass roots.
I can not believe for a second that Blatter could win the majority of a popular vote. I’d be willing to be proved wrong but that can never be remotely tested under the current set-up