Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RedCanuck
Great, so a nation can have an 'elite' program that takes the best players and receives all the attention but leaves barren the grass roots programs that produce quality footballers in depth.
|
Are you trying to invent new arguments for the sake of arguing. Leave barren Grass-root football? WTF are you on about?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RedCanuck
Part of the hold that fifa has on groups like Austrailia's football program is the lack of self-financing. Bureaucracies are established that need financing to survive, then fifa can leverage that need to squeeze votes. A better model would be to establish football from the ground up where a nation is not beggered without support from fifa (as is the case in Europe and South America).
|
Perhaps you can tell what genius initiatives Countries could come up with out having to resort to receiving funds from FIFA?
Maybe you could write a letter to the poor countries in Africa telling them they should stop using FIFA’s money and start using their own money on Football instead of less important things like health, education and infrastructure.
How do they leverage votes? Every country gets the same amount of money back. The head of Oceania isn’t even from Australia. In fact Australia have just as much say in the affairs of FIFA as Vanuatu or Fiji.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RedCanuck
Only 25% of the money gets paid out in that fashion after fifa take their cut so it would be more cost-effective for fifa to pay the cost to the clubs directly. How it would affect the money distributed is irrelevant since if the liability is found to be fifa's then they will have to pay or negotiate some other mechanism with the clubs.
|
Fuck me, you really do have a problem with grasping basic business principles?
FIFA don’t take a cut. It takes time, money and manpower to run an instituation like FIFA. Out of the profit they make they redistribute 75% of it and the rest is rolled over.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RedCanuck
I think it has more to do with having great athletes than Clariefontaine however trying to prove either argument is impossible. The 'elite' players that go to the acadamy are already good football players. By stripping the nation's clubs of their best players would then reduce the levels of skills and competition at those clubs, which works negatively on the players remaining.
|
Think about it this way. These players are selected at 13-14 years of age to go to that academy. They get best of tutorage available then go back to the Clubs and they benefit from it. The Clubs then sell these players for a mint to big European Clubs. BTW, it’s no coincidence that France went through its best period in International Football when the graduates started breaking into the International scene. The French Football Academy has received international acclaim. Theirry Henry says himself that he wouldn’t be half the player he is today without it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RedCanuck
It would appear that these countries are spending the money received on high-profile, high-performance inititives rather than the grass-roots programs that would greater serve the interests of football and the health of their citizens. While sport has long been used to raise a nation's international profile, there is little incentive for me, as a Manchester United fan, to subsidize this behaviour.
|
Oh yes what despicable behaviour. Giving money back poor countries so in can increase the profile of the sport. The world of football is bigger than one Club.