Infantino planning to sell stakes in the World Cup to investors | Scrapped

Can Trump bomb someone and get another WC? :lol:

They cant seriously be thinking about another WC in the US so soon. what's the shortest time-span between 2 tournaments in the same country? 30 years?
 
Theo88 said:
Can Trump bomb someone and get another WC? :lol:

They cant seriously be thinking about another WC in the US so soon. what's the shortest time-span between 2 tournaments in the same country? 30 years?
Click to expand...
16
Mexico 70 and Mexico 86 (Colombia were the original hosts but pulled out on grounds of costs. There was skullduggery to ensure it was Mexico that was chosen as the replacement host though)
 
Fr. Todd Unctious said:
16
Mexico 70 and Mexico 86 (Colombia were the original hosts but pulled out on grounds of costs. There was skullduggery to ensure it was Mexico that was chosen as the replacement host though)
Click to expand...

I didnt know about that one! before my time.

This also makes Mexico, of all places, the country with most tournaments (3!) (had to check this i thought Brazil had 3 not 2).

Interesting.

Infantino needs to go down along with his mega plans, before he turns football into an NFL superbowl light.
I have half a mind he will rename the thing into superbowl too next time.
 
So he's expecting a favour from Trump with seemingly not much to offer in return, cant see that not going well for him.
 
What can Trump do, offer a tariff on countries that dont comply?
 
vodrake said:
I'm almost sure that Infantino is currently looking into what the ramifications would be of taking the World Cup off of Spain/Portugal in 2030 and awarding it to the USA
Click to expand...
I take it Spain and Portugal have been secretly hording nuclear weapons for a while now and are a threat to the USA ?

Trump to target certain locations where he things they are hiding them, like under football stadiums.
 
It's amazing looking back just how brazen he was about it. Rescinding CR7 suspension before the tournament, shoe horning Miami into the CWC with no qualification process because they have Messi, the fake peace prize to curry favor, the mandatory commercial breaks each half, the Super Bowl like halftime show in the final, the Balogun situation. All of this was meant to show investors just how monetized the event could be (with even more to come I'm sure) while flexing his power in re-instating players whenever he wanted to either for commercial reasons like CR7 and Messi or for political reasons like with Balogun, such that those capitial investments will stay safe.

And it sounds like the only reason he didn't announce it earlier was because UEFA and some of the FA's protesting the Balogun situation so the timing wasn't right or whatever. Kind of glad he did reinstate him actually, as if he hadn't it wouldn't have riled up the FA's too much (they all supported his re-election btw), his plan may have actually worked and we'd be looking right now at the commercialization death of the World Cup and the loss of the soul from the sport.
 
Last edited:
What does the US contribute to FIFA? Trump only ever uses the US’s superior funding to threaten international organisations, no idea what leverage they can hold over FIFA - or more specifically, UEFA.

The reason one vote per association currently fails is that it’s open to significant corruption, due to the historic system of incentives. That needs to change immediately, with the first likely casualty being the loss of personal wealth that comes from heading up an FA.

Achieve that and we move to a system of governance that has a far greater chance of meritocracy.
 
VP89 said:
What can Trump do, offer a tariff on countries that dont comply?
Click to expand...

Well, he put tariffs on those penguins in Heard Island

If enough countries pull out, Trump could offer a new deal and those penguins could be playing in the World Cup
 
Last edited:
vodrake said:
I'm almost sure that Infantino is currently looking into what the ramifications would be of taking the World Cup off of Spain/Portugal in 2030 and awarding it to the USA
Click to expand...
Thats impossible. He cant make this decision alone.
 
Spark said:
What does the US contribute to FIFA? Trump only ever uses the US’s superior funding to threaten international organisations, no idea what leverage they can hold over FIFA - or more specifically, UEFA.

The reason one vote per association currently fails is that it’s open to significant corruption, due to the historic system of incentives. That needs to change immediately, with the first likely casualty being the loss of personal wealth that comes from heading up an FA.

Achieve that and we move to a system of governance that has a far greater chance of meritocracy.
Click to expand...
They have no leverage. Infantino’s deal on the other hand would have given them quite a lot.
 
Zen86 said:
They have no leverage. Infantino’s deal on the other hand would have given them quite a lot.
Click to expand...
Exactly, which makes it bizarre that Infantino is running to Trump - should reports be believed.

For someone who manoeuvred his way to the FIFA presidency, he really seems to have lost all his political senses. I said before this went tits up for him that I was looking forward to his reckoning - didn’t expect it to happen a week later.
 
Spark said:
Exactly, which makes it bizarre that Infantino is running to Trump - should reports be believed.

For someone who manoeuvred his way to the FIFA presidency, he really seems to have lost all his political senses. I said before this went tits up for him that I was looking forward to his reckoning - didn’t expect it to happen a week later.
Click to expand...
It’s just a desperation move. He’s lost his support and has been doing his utmost to ingratiate himself to Trump over the last year or so. Basically he’s wanting a Hail Mary.
 
Running to Trump for help is absolutely hilarious, and highlights exactly what a weasel he is. Talk about inflaming a situation in the very worst way possible
 
Spark said:
What does the US contribute to FIFA? Trump only ever uses the US’s superior funding to threaten international organisations, no idea what leverage they can hold over FIFA - or more specifically, UEFA.

The reason one vote per association currently fails is that it’s open to significant corruption, due to the historic system of incentives. That needs to change immediately, with the first likely casualty being the loss of personal wealth that comes from heading up an FA.

Achieve that and we move to a system of governance that has a far greater chance of meritocracy.
Click to expand...
Fifa keep all the profits from world cups, and the expenses are paid by the cities. Trump needs a massive kickback somewhere, Infantino just made 15 billion infront of him
 
Many european FA have officially retired their support for the elections but will it be enough ? If all South American and African countries keep their votes for him, is he getting another term ? Or will they go back to boycotting competitions until he's removed ?
 
The Firestarter said:
Thats impossible. He cant make this decision alone.
Click to expand...
He also can't just ignore the fixed rule that the halftime is 15m at most. Or ignore the minimum one match ban for a straight red. Oh wait...

What gives you the impression that Infantino gives a crap about what he's allowed to do?
 
UEFA and individual European associations should continue to apply pressure until he is gone, while the case is still fresh. This guy is an utter cockroach. He will rally support from tiny FAs around the world with some kind of promises and survive this, if given time.
 
The stance of the Mexican FMF was both terrible, but also not surprising as they are every bit as corrupt and money-hungry as FIFA.

Many people ask why the Mexican NT hasn’t achieved more (not playing in a World Cup quarter-final match since 1986 on home soil), and why there have been so few genuinely world class Mexican players in history (I can think of just 2; Hugo Sanchez and Rafael Marquez).

A major cause of that is the FMF, who care far more about lining their pockets, and far less about actually footballing development.
 
Spark said:
The reason one vote per association currently fails is that it’s open to significant corruption, due to the historic system of incentives. That needs to change immediately, with the first likely casualty being the loss of personal wealth that comes from heading up an FA.

Achieve that and we move to a system of governance that has a far greater chance of meritocracy.
Click to expand...

There is no greater meritocracy than 1 nation 1 vote in a system that shuts out corruption and patronage in every FA. You don't counteract corruption simply by giving some nations more votes. Before this World Cup, Infantino had the support of most nations, even after his Saudi Arabia and Club World Cup stunts. He ran unopposed in 2023. Where were the non-corrupt nations then?

Otherwise, why not extend this supposed meritocracy to UEFA, so that France, Spain, England, Germany, Portugal and Italy disproportionately call the shots? What have Estonia and Israel done to merit an equal vote? Why does Israel have a vote???
 
Infestissumam said:
what a loser.
Click to expand...
G3079 said:
Yeah, I can really see appealing to Trump helping him with keeping his presidency :rolleyes:
What's he gonna do, threaten to invade Greenland again if they fire him?
Click to expand...
Eyepopper said:
So he's expecting a favour from Trump with seemingly not much to offer in return, cant see that not going well for him.
Click to expand...


Well yeah, maybe there's not much Trump can do now, but clearly given the involvement of Kushner then Trump would have been the biggest driver of the plan to try and take a slice of the football pie in the first place.

From Infantino's perspective, he's probably just thinking that Trump led him in to this mess, and so is praying that he can help get him out of it somehow.
 
adexkola said:
There is no greater meritocracy than 1 nation 1 vote in a system that shuts out corruption and patronage in every FA. You don't counteract corruption simply by giving some nations more votes. Before this World Cup, Infantino had the support of most nations, even after his Saudi Arabia and Club World Cup stunts. He ran unopposed in 2023. Where were the non-corrupt nations then?

Otherwise, why not extend this supposed meritocracy to UEFA, so that France, Spain, England, Germany, Portugal and Italy disproportionately call the shots? What have Estonia and Israel done to merit an equal vote? Why does Israel have a vote???
Click to expand...
1 nation 1 vote has nothing to do with meritocracy, it's not even egalitarian since it clearly gives a higher value to some. It's just simple which is a defensible reason for the system when you consider the very small amount of initial members but it's neither fair, nor based on meritocracy and should have been changed in the 1950s.
 
JPRouve said:
1 nation 1 vote has nothing to do with meritocracy, it's not even egalitarian since it clearly gives a higher value to some. It's just simple which is a defensible reason for the system when you consider the very small amount of initial members but it's neither fair, nor based on meritocracy and should have been changed in the 1950s.
Click to expand...

UEFA follows the same principle though, unless I'm mistaken. France and Slovakia have the same rights in UEFA, politically speaking. Merit as defined by on pitch achievements, is weighted towards France by better seeding in the Euros/WC qualifiers, and by greater places in the CL/EL/Conference League. Do you feel UEFA's structure is unfair and biased towards Slovakia and Malta?

What happened in the 1950s that necessitated the system being changed? What was right with the world until the 1950s? :)
 
JPRouve said:
1 nation 1 vote has nothing to do with meritocracy, it's not even egalitarian since it clearly gives a higher value to some. It's just simple which is a defensible reason for the system when you consider the very small amount of initial members but it's neither fair, nor based on meritocracy and should have been changed in the 1950s.
Click to expand...

HookedOnAPhelan said:
The voting structure of FIFA clearly needs to change. At the moment every country regardless of size has the same voting power, which means that corrupt cnuts like Infantino only need to butter up enough small countries in order to get elected.
Click to expand...

Talking hypothetically here, do you take issue with 1 person 1 vote in the election process for governments in most present day democracies - even though some people have a much higher net worth than others and contribute more to a country's economy in taxes etc.? Hypothetically, it's possible for governments to get elected by buttering up and making promises to those who it could be argued have less merit in being pandered to.

What's the difference?
 
Fresh Kit said:
Talking hypothetically here, do you take issue with 1 person 1 vote in the election process for governments in most present day democracies - even though some people have a much higher net worth than others and contribute more to a country's economy in taxes etc.? Hypothetically, it's possible for governments to get elected by buttering up and making promises to those who it could be argued have less merit in being pandered to.

What's the difference?
Click to expand...
Great post.
 
adexkola said:
UEFA follows the same principle though, unless I'm mistaken. France and Slovakia have the same rights in UEFA, politically speaking. Merit as defined by on pitch achievements, is weighted towards France by better seeding in the Euros/WC qualifiers, and by greater places in the CL/EL/Conference League. Do you feel UEFA's structure is unfair and biased towards Slovakia and Malta?

What happened in the 1950s that necessitated the system being changed? What was right with the world until the 1950s? :)
Click to expand...

Yes, the UEFA structure is as senseless as the FIFA structure. Again the reason is obvious and I already stated it. We are talking about federations that represent actual people, actual affiliates. It makes no logical sense to consider that 2000 people have the same representativity than 2 millions.

And to be honest I said 1950s arbitrarily. The reason is because FIFA or to be more accurate the IFAB started with 7 members in that case the simplicity of one member federation having one vote made some sense. In the late 1940s the amount of members jumped from 34 to 48 then in the late 1950s it jumped to 62. The more federations of various sizes join the board the least sense it makes especially when there are obvious ways to fix the representativity issue.

Fundamentally the issue is one of representativity, you can't make the point that a FA like Monserrat is as representative as the FA of Iran.
 
Fresh Kit said:
Talking hypothetically here, do you take issue with 1 person 1 vote in the election process for governments in most present day democracies - even though some people have a much higher net worth than others and contribute more to a country's economy in taxes etc.? Hypothetically, it's possible for governments to get elected by buttering up and making promises to those who it could be argued have less merit in being pandered to.

What's the difference?
Click to expand...

The difference is precisely that this isn't a 1 person 1 vote. In this case what you have is one representative one vote and the question that you need to ask to yourself is what are they representing.

Do you think that it makes sense that the representative of 20k affiliates is equal to the representative of 2 millions affiliates? Each affiliates of the later are given 1/100 of the voice of the former.
 
JPRouve said:
The difference is precisely that this isn't a 1 person 1 vote. In this case what you have is one representative one vote and the question that you need to ask to yourself is what are they representing.

Do you think that it makes sense that the representative of 20k affiliates is equal to the representative of 2 millions affiliates? Each affiliates of the later are given 1/100 of the voice of the former.
Click to expand...
No voting system is perfect , but if population is what you are basing the proportionality on, countries like China, India, and the US would have greater influence over world football. Do you think that would lead to fairer outcome?

By the way, one country one vote is not uncommon in federations. For example, in the US each state has two senators to balance the other proportional representation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.