Changing FIFA Is The Way Forward: The Alternative Could Be Disastrous

Ian

Ian began writing Twohundredpercent in May 2006. He lives in Brighton. He has also written for, amongst others, Pitch Invasion, FC Business Magazine, The Score, When Saturday Comes, Stand Against Modern Football and The Football Supporter. Ian was the first winner of the Socrates Award For Not Being Dead Yet at the 2010 NOPA awards for football bloggers.

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. Tim Vickerman says:

    Let’s hope that this does lead to real change. My near namesake Tim Vickery made an excellent point on the latest World Football Phone-in when he pointed out that the pre-Havelange FIFA may have been corruption-free but effectively stalled the development in Africa and many countries outside Europe in addition to supporting the participation of apartheid South Africa.

    FIFA has, probably by dubious means and for selfish purposes (buying their loyalty), given greater power to even minor football nations and made football into a truly global game. FIFA does need to become accountable, transparent but remain truly global and committed to the development of the game and not kowtow to the established powers of Europe and South America.

  2. Richard says:

    If ‘developing football in Africa’ means the Togolese federation sending the team through an Angolan warzone by bus, or the Zambian national team travelling to matches on an obviously dangerous plane, I don’t see how Stanley Rous’s alternative is worse. FIFA’s ‘bringing the game to the world’ solely means bringing money to the world’s sports administrators.

    South Korea first qualified for the World Cup in 1954, and qualified in successive tournaments between 1986 and 1998 with abysmal results. The team has got their act together because of the work put in in the 1990s by the K-League officials and teams to make a respectable competition. Not because their participation in a one-off tournament every four years was made easier.

  3. Tim Vickerman says:

    I’m not trying to defend FIFA in any way. The current set-up disgusts me. But the negative view of FIFA is not a global one. Blatter has built up his powerbase among the minor federations: CONCACAF, AFC and CAF. As I admitted, this is likely due to self-preservation.

    FIFA has brought the World Cup to Asia and Africa. Pre-1974 FIFA was so global in its outlook that the CAF and AFC boycotted the 1966 finals: http://www.twohundredpercent.net/?p=6797

    And I think the development of football is, perhaps loosely, connected to the World Cup. Setting up MLS in the US was a requirement of hosting the 1994 finals. Would the Premier League have been as popular without England’s decent showing in 1990?

    Anyway, I’m feeling a little dirty. After yesterday’s farcical press conference, Blatter cannot be allowed to continue and FIFA does need to be destroyed and rebuilt. But there’s a reason he feels untouchable and that’s largely from the support he STILL commands.

    Though if he has lost the support of CONMEBOL and the AFC, it could get interesting…

  4. Tim Vickerman says:

    Grrrrrr. CONCACAF, not CONMEBOL. Stupid long acronyms beginning with C…

  5. Not from the Midlands says:

    I would like FIFA to be dibanded but this isn’t going to happen and could lead to fighting and chaos.

    But the minimum is that everyone in any position of authoority resigns and then Change FIFA’s suggestions are implemented.
    Until then it will remain even more corrupt than the English game.

  1. July 28, 2011

    […] of those that run said clubs. At height of the FIFA corruption hysteria at the end of May, we noted on this site that, “Who is to say that the coup d’etat won’t come from a cabal of the biggest clubs […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>