During his time, Football has become truly embedded as *the* global game. With an audience of billions and the active participation of tens of millions.
The same sponsors who now mimsy around like delicate ladies at a tea dance flooded money into the game because of its global reach and the ability to capitalise on its associated virtues of individual endeavour and team spirit.
The idea that Coca Cola and McDonalds and Visa should now wield some kind of moral arbitrage in the matter is vaguely nauseating.
The upside of the money that did flood in was the development of the game in some of the most deprived and underprivileged parts of the world. Blatter himself overseeing the creation of pitches and facilities in far flung parts of Asia and Africa.
The principle that a country like Russia or a region like the Middle East should not be entitled to host a World Cup is ludicrous. Football has been a force for good in many parts of the world and has played a part in social change. It should be allowed to continue this work.
And by the way, why shouldn’t Monserrat have the same voting power as, say, Spain? Should my vote in the General Election count less than an aristocrat’s?
The women’s game has grown in profile and stature too under Blatter. Women’s tournaments and leagues are now taken seriously. In addition, again football has helped women’s rights in parts of the world where they have been most undermined. Blatter’s championing of Iran’s women footballers a prime example of his personal commitment.
Platini and UEFA by contrast strike me as Western centric 19th century plutocrats seeking to keep power vested in the hands of the rich and the few. Witness the bloated pantomime that is the Champions League and its bastard cousin the Europa League.
The notion that the FA and Greg Dyke – Greg Dyke who brought the BBC to its knees and whose primary achievement seems to be the introduction of Roland Rat to breakfast TV and who seemed unaware that the “gift” of a £20,000 watch may be inappropriate and who introduced a deeply silly proposed restructure of English football – should be the man to lead us to some fondly imagined “Jules Rimet still gleaming” upland is, frankly, laughable.
Blatter may be cunning and ruthless and less than humble. Most successful people are. Steve Jobs for example. Or Barrack Obama. Or Alex Ferguson. Or Platini. Or Dyke. It depends how you use your skills.
This is not about the force of good but the force of power and the old European dragon stirring from slumber with its allies at Coke and Maccy D and Adeedaz colluding to crush those upstart Africans. And Caribbeans. And Arabs. And Asians.
Most of the world in other words. Why should they have any say in the running of the world’s game?
Blatter may be an old rogue but he may have brought about greater good than bad and we may – just may – miss him when he’s gone
I barely agree with a word of that, but I’m really glad you wrote it.
What I will say is that many of those who are about to pile in on FIFA, including Platini, Greg Dyke and the FA, have known for years that the whole organisation is bent as a nine bob note, yet have been quite happy to continue playing ball so long as the money rolled in.
I don’t, personally, think there’s much honour in loudly proclaiming FIFA to be corrupt, while still sending your national team off to participate in its tournaments, and rinsing the resultant sponsorship dollar.
You do the right thing in life because it’s the right thing. Not because it’s the easy thing.
Anyway, thanks for making the case for the defence.
Thanks Bing – but what don’t you agree with?
That it is now a truly global game? That there has been a democratisation of the game as a result? That the Champions League is a bloated pantomime? That women play a more significant role in football now? That Greg Dyke should be nobody’s idea of a champion of fair minded and clear thinking?
My broad contention is that football is further forward now and in a much better place than it was under Blatter’s predecessor, the despicable Joao Havelange.
Well, I guess I feel that you’ve assumed that because Blatter heads FIFA he’s responsible for any positive development in the last 20 years, while simultaneously absolving him of blame for the negatives. I don’t think that cause/effect is as clear cut as you’re making out, although I appreciate that you’ve probably taken this stance to demonstrate a broader truth.
The game would be global by now, with or without Sepp Blatter. We can argue about extent, but it’s impossible to put this down to FIFA alone – there are myriad other factors which have nothing at all to do with FIFA.
Regarding the democratisation of the game, I don’t buy that for a minute. Power is now even more concentrated in the hands of the rich than previously. It’s not the case that a World Cup can be staged *anywhere* – it needs to be somewhere that can provide opportunities for juicy infrastructure contracts and pay the necessary kickbacks. This wasn’t the case previously, and the World Cup wasn’t only staged by Western 19th century plutocrats – the likes of Chile and Uruguay also hosted, and have very little chance of doing so again while Blatter is in power. I would actually suggest it’s astonishing that with the flow of cash into the game over the last two decades so little has flowed down to the grass roots, both in Asia/Africa and elsewhere.
The Champions League as a bloated pantomime? Not for me. It’s obviously flawed, but it knocks spots off what the World Cup has become. Until last summer’s tournament there hadn’t been a decent World Cup in nearly 20 years, directly as a consequence of Blatter’s programme of taking the tournament to less orthodox locations – staging it in historically football-mad Brazil only highlighted the difference. Last month I watched the first leg of Barca and Bayern’s Champs League semi final and it was one of the best games of football I’ve ever seen in my life – the quality was simply astounding, and the players went at it hell for leather. The CL is the game’s premier tournament now, and that downgrade in the status of the World Cup has happened on Blatter’s watch.
Not going to argue anything in support of Greg Dyke.
Women’s football has developed in spite of, not because of, Blatter. If it was down to him the participants would be wearing bikinis and oiling themselves up at half time.
I agree that Havelange was equally despicable.
Oh, and there are dozens of good reasons that the World Cup should not be held in Qatar. None of them have to do with football’s equivalent of cultural imperialism.
Good rebuttal Bing.
You’re right, I was deployed a polemical style to make a broader point.
I don’t think Qatar is the right choice – neither did Blatter. Unlike Guardiola.Ferguson. Platini.
And I do think a whiff of cultural imperialism does permeate the debate from “our” side.
that’s “did” deploy. Let me be accused of many things but, heaven forbid, not bad grammar!
or “was deploying”. I’ll go now.
I really enjoyed your OP. I worry when everyone gets on the same shouty, self righteous bandwagon that maybe we’ve formed a self-validating circle jerk: it’s good for someone to come along and challenge some of those assumptions, and you make your argument well.
You’re probably right that there’s an element of cultural imperialism re: Qatar. Among the many other (more virtuous) reasons why I oppose their host status, I’ll admit that I want the World Cup to be held in countries with a proper footballing heritage. I get the argument that you globalise the game by spreading it around, and that you have an opportunity to open doors and expand minds by being inclusive rather than exclusive, but all experience suggests that the World Cup just flat out works better in a countries where mass interest in the game goes back more than a decade, and particularly countries with more than 2 million inhabitants.
If you put on a great tournament then people from across the globe will watch and participate. If you drown it in vuvuzelas and slave labour then less so.
Anyway, well done for getting the debate going: not many people have been willing to press the other view this week.
The Afterword: A Self-Validating Circle Jerk.
In turquoise please. XXL.
Do we have to form a circle?
Yes, form a circle around the biscuit…
Tha Bizkit, surely?
Not sure I agree with your heritage/2m population argument.
America’s embrace of Saaker was kickstarted by hosting the WC in 1994.
Football is avidly followed in China, India and South Asia and it would be a good thing for both football and social reasons to have World Cups hosted there in years to come, in my opinion.
Can’t reply to your comment below as we’re out of room, so will do so here.
The 2 million population definitely seems pertinent, to me. I’m not sure a nation that small has ever hosted the tournament before: even Uruguay, which I’d guess would be the smallest host to date, has nearly double that population, and greater infrastructure to boot.
I agree that there can be value in hosting WCs outside the “established” football nations. For what it’s worth, the States would have been my choice of host for 2022, as it feels like they’re on a tipping point in terms of their relationship with the game. Not sure that’s comparable to Qatar though: the US is arguably the largest sports market in the world, with a population of 320 million.
Besides which, I’d like to see these “new market” World Cups become the exception, rather than the rule: the 1994 World Cup is not fondly remembered, nor were Japan/South Korea in 2002 or South Africa in 2010. We’re about to have two such World Cups in a row, and while it’s probably very exciting for the handful of people who live in Qatar to stage a World Cup (those who aren’t dying for the privilege) it is likely to deliver a greatly diminished tournament for the rest of the global audience, if precedent is anything to go by.
By all means, stage World Cups in the US, China, Africa and India. Just don’t make us wait 12 years or more between tournaments staged in traditional football hotbeds, because it’s damaging the brand: virtually no one holds the World Cup in the same regard they did 20 or 30 years ago.
…”the 1994 World Cup is not fondly remembered”…
You’ve obviously never been to Sweden, Bingo. Here it’s the ONLY World Cup fondly remembered these days! 🙂
Absolutely, Locust. The smokin’ guns celebrations, third place finish, very nice indeed.
Interesting, but….
– You make a very valid point about the sponsors very well. All have entered into high value agreements with FIFA at the top level. The idea that they have only just become aware of what FIFA is is plainly ludicrous. If they truly believe in what they say, they could have done a hell of a lot more given their bargaining power. FIFA is nothing without them. They have chosen not to but to do have done so would have exposed the rottenness within.
– Nobody is suggesting that no country doesn’t have the right to host the World Cup, but FIFA made a point about ethics, anti-racism, and it is quite clear that neither Russia nor Qatar fit the bill. The idea that having a World Cup for a month is going to change how those govts treat gays and migrant workers hereafter is nonsense. What is going on in Qatar at the moment is an absolute disgrace.
– Womens game: I was unaware of what Blatter has done in Iran. If that was his personal initiative then well done, but I would suggest the game has got bigger despite him rather than because of him. I seem to recall he was personally responsible for making some crass sexist remarks about how women players should dress. Furthermore he employed a senior American (?) woman at FIFA who subsequently resigned because she became sidelined and ignored by Blatter. This would suggest that he is only interested in how FIFA appears in order to pacify sponsors and promote itself.
There are too many officials who have siphoned off money for personal gain and for Blatter to claim no knowledge is just not credible. Remember this is a main who retains strict operational control at the highest level. Blatter’s aim is to promote FIFA and by extension himself. Apparently he seriously considers himself a viable candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize. All this has to stop and by criticising him and his bloated organisation doesn’t mean that I have any more time for the F.A, Platini, UEFA or the rest. The game deserves better than them.
A month of hosting a major world event may not change anything directly but I have to believe that it helps in some incremental way.
Kaizen.
Otherwise, we could not host any major event other than in Western Europe.
Now there’s an idea, thought Michel.
But I would suggest this doesn’t happen given that FIFA insist on restrictive legislation protecting sponsors, they do not do the same insisting on basic human rights. It’s all empty words. Of course this pre-dates Blatter, just look at Argentina ’78.
I laugh like a drain at FIFA’s exposure, and the attempt by egregious businessmen who own or run other sports teams to extract some moral one-upmanship.
Ah well, at least the music industry isn’t full of spin, bullshit, graft, etc. [irony]
Personally, I would be interested to know how much of the cash has actually ended up being spent on pitches or whatever and how much as ended up ‘elsewhere’. As to whether the sport is further forward, I guess it depends on where you are viewing from. The poor sods apparently dying in droves in Qatar may well take a a more jaundiced view.
As an aside I am not sure the general election analogy works that well when there is such a huge disparity in the populations of some of constituent nations. Not any easy one to resolve, granted, but we now have a situation where Montserrat, Gibralter and the Faroes have more voting power than India and China.
But can Blatter be held responsible for what happens to the money downstream any more than our government can for what happens to aid money? Designed for the powerless and needy but siphoned off by the powerful and greedy.
How much day to day control can we exercise to ensure that the money is used appropriately? Realistically?
As a separate note, our agency used to work for a major charity whose governance and commitment to sustainability was, in practice, far more lax than that of a major pharmaceutical company that we also handled.
We are in murky moral waters but Blatter, whatever we may construe as his motives, has tried to ensure that money does reach the very bottom of the food chain. That predators lurk there is a fact, but not of his making.
“Blatter is apparently good at finding money.”
Blatter is the long-term president of an organisation that is now subject to two worldwide investigations. Under his watch it appears that much has gone wrong as greedy people are alleged to have raked in over £100m in bribes and kickbacks. The very people who kept him in power. The buck stops with him.
FIFA exists to do those things you mention to promote football. With a better president it may have happened sooner. Certainly someone who would not have made the following comments about women’s football.
Sepp Blatter, the president of the world governing body Fifa, said women should have skimpier kit to increase the popularity of the game. “Let the women play in more feminine clothes like they do in volleyball,” he said.
“They could, for example, have tighter shorts. Female players are pretty, if you excuse me for saying so, and they already have some different rules to men – such as playing with a lighter ball. That decision was taken to create a more female aesthetic, so why not do it in fashion?”
“Chuck Blazer likely would have been one of those arrested had he not left the organization in 2013. Blazer, 69, is the former secretary general of CONCACAF, which turned itself in to the United State government in 2012 after years of tax evasion.
Blazer, who reportedly evaded plenty of taxes of his own, has already plead guilty in the investigation and now is working in conjunction with both the IRS and FBI as in informant, according to the New York Daily News. But that’s not the most interesting part of the story.
Among the perks Blazer received while operating as secretary general — including houses in New York, Miami and the Bahamas and “a world of private jets, famous friends, secret island getaways, offshore bank accounts and so much fine food and drink that he eventually needed a fleet of mobility scooters to move from feast to feast” — this is the most fascinating: he also had two apartments in the Trump Tower, one he worked out of that cost approximately $18,000 per month.
The other, though, was an “adjoining $6,000 retreat largely for his unruly cats,” according to a source cited in the News’ report.”
FIFA exists to do those things you mention to promote football. With a better president it may have happened sooner
A better president, yes. But a worse one would be entirely possible too.
A deeply corrupt friend of murderous South American Generals, for example. No,I don’t mean Mrs Thatcher.
Hard to say what would have happened in football without him…but what actually did happen is what’s important. It turns out that what actually did happen was criminal.
The lad himself warns of “more bad news to follow”. Perhaps give it a while before defending him too strongly…?
But aside from all that (and I realise that Havelange was just as bad) – what makes these dribbling old tossers think that they should have a profile, or leave a legacy or be in any way a figurehead – unless they are in it for vanity and vanity alone?
I would say Blatter’s only possible defence (the “Reagan defence”) is that he enjoyed the prestige but was too dim and bewildered to know what was actually going on. He does not have a reputation for hands-off management and he’s not stupid. I would suggest that this is why he has done just the right amount of good work in developing nations.
There’s every chance that he will survive the election vote process despite the chutzpah he is displaying now. But his reputation is shot – and that’s what’s going to be his downfall. Brian.
I would use the “Blair” defence.
Do I think his support of the Gulf war was misguided at best, yes. On the other hand do I think that Britain became, broadly speaking, a better place after his tenure than before, yes.
One of the truly depressing spectacles of Qatar’s World Cup bid/bid win was the number of people I respected who became paid ‘ambassadors’ to promote the campaign; Guardiola was one. It seemed to be a case of, “Here’s some cash, lads. Turn off your brains and consciences, and go and promote our bid.” And people just took the cash, with absolutely no thought as to what was good for the game, or the poor dead and dying who’d end up building the stadiums.
If memory serves, that bastion of FIFA reform, Platini, voted for Qatar. Didn’t Putin give him a ‘gift’ of a Picasso?
The truth is they are all as bad as each other.
The World Cups of 2018 and 2022 are going to be crowd sound through open windows for me, I don’t intend to see a moment of either.
And I’m not anti-football, having gone to about 60 matches last season.
I’ve recommended this before, but ‘Foul’ by Andrew Jennings is an excellent account of the corrupt practices that FIFA has been involved in since the odious Havelange took power.
Soccer was the world’s most popular sport before Blatter and will continue to be so after Blatter. Any funds he has distributed to developing countries has been with the prime aim of securing their votes. Only a small percentage of the total has ever trickled down to the grassroots. For example, Jack Warner has gone from being a humble schoolteacher to a multimillionaire in a matter of years.
In my opinion, the World Cup itself has been devalued under Blatter’s watch. It is now too bloated and too long and there is a bias against Western European teams qualifying as it suits Blatter to hand out spots to areas whose votes he can rely on.
For some time now, Blatter has resembled a Mafia Don – surrounded by goons and sycophants and resistant to overthrow. That his executives are to be charged under RICO statues is absolutely appropriate, given their methods of operation.
He, himself, is fully complicit in the staggering corruption of FIFA and has personally and to family members siphoned off tens of millions during his reign. The galling aspect of his reign was that it seemed impossible to depose him.
When the last World Cup venues were announced, it was abundantly clear to even the meanest intellect that wholesale bribery had been involved. There is no reason why it should be held in Quatar. It’s to small, hellishly hot, has insufficient infrastructure and has no history or tradition of football.
The Premiership and the Champions League are, IMHO, much more responsible for the explosive growth of soccer worldwide.
Finally, as a cultural imperialist, I firmly believe that more votes should be accorded to European and South American countries in the running of FIFA and that these nations should hold many more World Cups than others. It is shameful that England, who invented the game, should have had only one tournament. The way FIFA has been run recently meant, to all intents and purposes, that England would never host it again.
Corruption is a cancer on the sport – no individual should be enriching themselves illicitly while having responsibility for the running of the sport.
Blimey – you’re back. Great post, agree with every word.
I need to thank you for recommending Harpo Speaks. One of the best biogs I’ve ever read – what a life!
Thanks, Bingo. I only have to see the title and I smile. Amazing life, hilarious antics, beautifully told.
Re FIFA, I omitted to mention the incredible conditions they impose on host countries as regards tax, money and treatment of executives.
^^ This, 100%
(Thanks Ian)
I would urge those of a cultural imperialist bent to become something more resembling cultural evangelists.
Spread the light. Spread the word.
Why on earth should tiny England host a global event any more often than, say, China? Because we “invented” it?
By that token we should host pretty much all tournaments in all sports including but not confined to – football, rugby, cricket, tennis, wiff waff and tag team needlepoint – since we “invented” most sports.
Perhaps they should be played in the grounds of our finest public schools. Since, it was there that many of the rules were first codified.
At least, we’d know the right spirit, the right values and the right sort of chaps were in the forefront.
Well, jolly old England does host Wimbledon every year; St Andrews hosts The Open every 5 years in recognition of its place in the history of the sport; Tests are held annually at Lords and other grounds; rugby World Cups are only played in countries with a history and tradition in the game. England may be a ‘tiny’ country of only 60 million, but it has played the key role in the spread of football worldwide. IMO, it remains a scandal that England with its incredibly successful Premiership, it’s excellent stadia, hotels, infrastructure and passion for the game has only hosted one World Cup.
If your criterion is size, then why Quatar? Even if there was an overwhelming argument for taking the competition to an area which could prove fatal to the players in the summer when the tournament has always taken place (not forgetting their repugnant attitudes toward women and others)then at least Saudi Arabla has some history in the game. Bit difficult for fans though.
I am not defending Qatar. I have said here and elsewhere it a bad decision made for the wrong reasons. Blatter has never supported Qatar either.
Until Qatar – and it remains to be seen whether that goes ahead – since the inception of the World Cup, only twice – South Korea/Japan in 2002 and USA in 1994 – has it gone outside the designated S.America/European heartland, into which I include Russia.
As you say, England and the UK hosts plenty of other major sporting events regularly, even annually. That is good. However, It has no divine right to host the World Cup.
It may be, just maybe, it is precisely our attitude of assumed privileged status that counts against us. Brits running round the world telling it what to do plays terribly badly these days.
For me, I would rather India or China or Nigeria or Malaysia host the event before we do again.
It would be a good thing and may bring about other good things societally as well as for football,.
Ahem…. South Africa 2010? Mexicos 70 and 86?
Sorry,forgot South Africa but you would not argue against it as a big nation, nuts about football. Good tournament too, apart from the Vuvuzela drone.
I’m counting Mexico as part of S.America for the purpose of this argument.
Blimey – good luck convincing the Mexicans they’re part of South America, or vice versa!
Since 1982, the following world cups have been held/will be held outside the traditional European/South American countries: 86, 94, 2002, 2010, 2018, 2022.
Also, the reason England haven’t been allowed to host a second time (as Italy, France and Germany have all done) is that we have a press who are extremely critical of FIFA. We will never host again while that’s the case.
I accept that Geo-politically Mexico is not “South America” but in footballing terms it is.
Playing, as do other Central American nations, in the Copa America.
It is probably the only nation in its region that has the size and infrastructure to host the event.
The fact that there has been a greater geographical spread of host nations since 1982 is, in my view. a good thing. Something that I am commending Blatter for overseeing.
The notion that England were denied the World Cup on the basis of one Panorama programme and a few newspaper articles vastly over-rates their significance in global terms.
Our media has been hypercritical of the IOC in the past, more vociferously so, yet we were still awarded the 2012 Olympics.
On a broader note, it never ceases to amaze me how important we fondly imagine our role on the world stage to be.
“They” – Johnny Foreigner doesn’t really care about us. It’s not that they don’t like us, we simply don’t register on their radar.
They like our Premier League (mainly foreign players anyway) and our One Direction and *that* is about it.
Oh and they quite like our Kate. Middleton not Mossman, sadly
‘India or China or Nigeria or Malaysia’ … ‘It would be a good thing’ Why does the location of the World Cup have to ‘be a good thing’? It’s not some UN mission to bring enlightenment to the developing world and guide them in the way of progressive Western values.
Giving it to Quatar, currently the major financial backer of ISIS, will not result in that benighted shit-hole suddenly embracing women’s rights and gay rights.
Why not locate it in countries that have the available stadia and infrastructure and are also eminently suitable and affordable for the fans to visit, travel around easily and enjoy a festival of football? Shouldn’t it primarily suit the fans who would love to attend?
To consider at some of your suggestions- India’s main sport is cricket, they don’t have suitable stadia, their transport infrastructure is awful and the country is difficult to get around. Nigeria? You have to be kidding. Have you ever visited there? I’ve worked there. It’s an unmitigated hell-hole and anyone willing to travel there for a tournament marks themselves down as a candidate for the Darwin Award. It’s chaotic, violent and extremely dangerous. There is no infrastructure worth the name. The recent RSA World Cup has not been a happy experience for its citizens, with untold resources being wasted on white elephant stadia. Malaysia is too small and its predominant religion of peace may not take kindly to fans wetting their whistles. China could certainly host it, but it would prove very expensive for the fans.
Again, I highly recommend ‘Foul’.
If you take the attitude that things can never change, they never will.
I am suggesting that culture in its broadest sense – music, art, literature and sport – can have a profound effect in bringing about change.
I am also suggesting that commerce has beneficial effects in building the infrastructure and expanding the economies of the nations highlighted.
Economics and social pressure leads to political change. Far more effectively than exclusion. Or, misguided military interventions.
I think Blatter , for all his faults, understands that.
Incidentally, I would be just as happy to see the WC awarded to Australia or the Nordics as the spread of Football, in and of itself, is in my view a good thing
I don’t have it to hand, but I think the most recent study I saw demonstrated the absence of any economic benefit from hosting big events like the WC or Olympics.
!! a colossal round of applause.
I haven’t read your post yet.
Great to see your by-line again. I still haven’t found that copy of Ronnie Wood’s book that I promised to send to you – I can only conclude that the wife gave it to the hospice shop. when I wasn’t looking.
Tell me you’ve read it by now anyway, or I’ll order a tax-dodging copy and have it helicoptered to the restaurant.
I don’t read everything which crops up here, but I get the impression that there are plenty of us who enjoy the working man’s ballet ( Sir Alf ? Alan Hudson ? Alf Garnett ? – don’t know.)
I’m now on Nogkid no 4.
He’s 13 and plays for Alexandra Park FC – where Adrian Chiles was 5 living it this morning.
We run 44 teams for boys and girls aged 8 – 18.
I’m an FA licensed coach – I put out a mean cone – and we have 40 odd within the club.
I manage a team with my mate.
Our September to May is taken up with our team and I absolutely love my involvement, being very grumpy in the close season.
20 years ago I lived I spent two years in Zimbabwe, teaching.
I travelled all around Southern Africa and every bus station had small boys kicking something, anything around.
I was interviewed about Hoddlee and Waddlee, complimented upon the quality of ” that fat one from your village, ” ( Gascoigne, ) and saw something of the global reach of the game.
I pay £320 for the Nogkid to play.
I spend £1000000000000 per season on travel to and from, bits of kit, nets, pegs, reward kit kats, and so on.
and
The only part of my expenditure which I resent is the small amount which goes to my club which makes its way to FIFA because I don’t think they’re any more relevant to our mud-based horizontal sleet in November experience than NASA or the Magic Circle.
The very fact that there needs to be a bidding process – £ 16,000 watches anyone ?
Why not rotate it across the continents ?
That there needs to be a sponsor ………….. Macdonalds / Coke / Lard and early death.com doesn’t have much to do with me and my experience of the game .
I’m currently sorting player registrations for next year and at the same time shaping up to rejoin the Spurs member scheme next year.
Here’s hoping for a good season for APYFC U 14 South, Spurs – sorry – and whoever you support. Here’s also to the USA legal folk who have had the nads to go for the untouchable FIFA hierarchy.
Blatter will be remembered in his most recent final term – but for all the wrong reasons.
Predictably….
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/may/29/sepp-blatter-reelected-fifa-president-fifth-term
Thanks. Had the dubious pleasure of reading Ronnie’s book. A fool and his money…..
Indeed, rather like my wife when she bought it for me.
The man is a Bond villain
Who, Bingo Little? Say it ain’t so.
I don’t think Blatter is an arch villain but an arch pragmatist. In a shitty world, you sometimes have to do shitty things, to get good things done.
*strokes white fluffy cat*
*monologues*
Great OP Fin, but I think you are rather overstating Blatter’s motives with your above comment. I would suggest a few clues could be found in these seven rules of bureaucracy
Rule #1: Maintain the problem at all costs! The problem is the basis of power, perks, privileges, and security.
Rule #2: Use crisis and perceived crisis to increase your power and control.
Rule 2a. Force 11th-hour decisions, threaten the loss of options and opportunities, and limit the opposition’s opportunity to review and critique.
Rule #3: If there are not enough crises, manufacture them, even from nature, where none exist.
Rule #4: Control the flow and release of information while feigning openness.
Rule 4a: Deny, delay, obfuscate, spin, and lie.
Rule #5: Maximize public-relations exposure by creating a cover story that appeals to the universal need to help people.
Rule #6: Create vested support groups by distributing concentrated benefits and/or entitlements to these special interests, while distributing the costs broadly to one’s political opponents.
Rule #7: Demonize the truth tellers who have the temerity to say, “The emperor has no clothes.”
Rule 7a: Accuse the truth teller of one’s own defects, deficiencies, crimes, and misdemeanors.
Thanks D..J
And yes – that does sound like a Blatter playbook. And one or two CEOs I’ve worked with.
Anyone who thinks the 2022 tourament will be taken away from Qatar is dreaming!
Wonder if we’ll see it held in England/UK again in our lifetimes?
I used to think that but not so sure now. A lot of horse trading between then and now to be done.
Spot on there Ian.
You’re back and I agree with every word of the first post from you that I read. The world turned upside down in one way or another!
Isn’t there a much simpler answer to all of this palaver? It’s our game, we invented it, so can’t we just decide that the teams should henceforth be 10 players strong instead of 11? Decimalisation, we could call it. Anyone playing 11 a side in future will therefore no longer be playing association football, and can go hang. Nyaaa-nyaaa.
While Platini might allow himself a broad smile at your decimalisation plan VV, the anti-EU brigade will hate it. No matter. I have a cunning plan. Just play an extra man ‘in the hole’ y voila! Football à dix.
Didn’t the Americans invent 10 pin bowling because the puritanical lawmakers banned 9 pin skittles?
Anyway, I thought this local piece was interesting. We have the U20 FIFA World Cup going on down here and it seems there was heavy lobbying from FIFA for taxpayer funds to go to FIFA “health programmes”.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/world-game/68993619/fifa-fatcats-given-suits-suites-and-sweeteners-while-in-nz
Whether or not all the money donated to provide pitches in, say, Botswana is almost certainly beyond Blatter’s influence. Large backhanders around huge construction contracts, broadcasting rights and the like should be very much within his line of vision. Half of the people already discredited and/or the subject of the current investigation are the equivalent of his direct reports. Did it never cross his mind to muse how Jack Warner became a multi-millionaire on the back of his Vice Presidency and Concacaf role ? Perhaps he though he just saved a few quid from his expenses each time he travelled on official business. Nipped out to Burger King rather than eating in the hotel, that sort of thing.
In the final analysis I think it is significant that even some of the South Americans have now seen through Blatter and voted against him.
Good piece from Slate outlining the US approach to the FIFA case
http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2015/05/fifa_arrests_sepp_blatter_s_organization_might_actually_go_down_thanks_to.html
There seems to be a degree of confidence that this really could be the beginning of the end for FIFA as an extension of Blatter’s way of doing things.
The kleptocratic incompetents who govern RSA spent around $4 billion on hosting the World Cup, including $1 Bn on two new stadiums in Durban and Cape Town when both cities already possessed 50,000 capacity grounds. They also spent millions on a huge new stadium for Nelspruit which is a one-horse town. These are all now massive drains on local resources and will, in all probability, have to be demolished. Given the horrendous issues the population face with regard to housing. drinking water, employment and even feeding themselves, the government would have been better spending their scarce funds on attempting to remedy these problems. However, that would have reduced the opportunities for graft, bribery and self-aggrandisement.