FIFA

Blazer has already confessed in return for I presume a lighter sentence although as he is seriously ill that might not make much difference.

(01-06-2015 07:23 )Charlemagne Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 06:54 )babelover48 Wrote:  Platini is going to have a hard time convincing everybody in UEFA.

Russia for example.

Exactly my point then there is Germany (the current holders), Spain, France Italy.
I think England and a few small nations will only withdraw I think the rest of the European nations will split from UEFA

(01-06-2015 07:35 )HannahsPet Wrote:  the french team is no where near the power they were in the late 90's early 2000

the Spanish are a spent force in terms of national side now that most of there golden generation are close to retiring

and the russians have never been a powerhouse in football

Are we using success on the pitch as a barometer of power and influence within UEFA?

That might not work out well for us...

South Africa has admitted to paying a £6.5 million bribe to a top FIFA offical, relating to the 2010 World Cup.
Sepp Blatter has stated that the offical wasn't him

It is starting to become more clear how this FIFA scam works.

Basically,

MONEY IN

- Sponsorship
- TV rights
- Share of ticket sales and merchandise

Presumably, the FIFA executives then swim around in it for a few days like some cartoon ducks, before they get down to the important business of spending it.

MONEY OUT

They pay all of their overheads (including some truly eye-watering salaries and the rent on their FIFA palace).

They set some aside into their reserve.

Whatever is left over is meant to be "reinvested in the game", which means that it should be redistributed (according to some agreed formula) to all of the constituent national Associations.

So far, that is all perfectly legit.

HOW THE BRIBES ARE PAID

So, according to the formula (which is determined by population, 'need', etc.), the payments should be as follows:

Country A gets $100 million
Country B gets $60 million
Country C gets $50 million

...and so on.

Now suppose Country A wants to bribe an official in Country B. Any direct payments of a substantial amount would be too obvious to spot. So, instead, they go into a Zurich hotel bar and make an agreement with FIFA that instead of paying Country A the full $100 million that they are due, they adjust the formula so that Country A only gets $90 million and Country B gets $70 million.

Hey presto, the bribe has been made. But because it is included within a very large and perfectly legitimate transfer, the receiving bank has no reason to question it. If the South African FA paid CONCACAF $10 million, that would immediately raise a red flag. But if FIFA pays CONCACAF $70 million instead of $60 million, no one would notice unless they were specifically looking for any anomalies.

Quite clever, actually. Now I kind of wish that I'd studied harder in school so that I could have been a corrupt FIFA official.

Very clever but surely Country B WOULD have brought the payment into question if it had noticed it was £20m short?

Wonder how many people will buy fifa 16 game

(01-06-2015 17:47 )babelover48 Wrote:  Very clever but surely Country B WOULD have brought the payment into question if it had noticed it was £20m short?

Not 100% sure what you mean by this, but if I have understood correctly, then you are questioning why -- even in a completely legitimate distribution of funds -- some countries would receive more or less than others (?)

There is actually nothing wrong or unusual about that. Every FIFA member is entitled to a "base" amount (which is in the hundreds of thousands, not the millions). Then they apply for extra funds for "football development" projects through the FIFA funding programmes. If they are like every other funding programme, then they will always be hugely oversubscribed with more funding requests than there are funds available. There will therefore be some procedure for applying and some set of criteria for assessing applications. So the funds will be unevenly distributed depending on the volume and strength of applications in any given year.

That's no different to the way that the FA or Sport England or UK Sport distribute funding across this country -- it doesn't spread evenly on either a flat rate or a per capita basis.

But wherever you have a subjective decision-making process, you have an opportunity for corruption. In this country, I'd wager that decision-making can -- at times -- be incompetent or mismanaged, but not intentionally corrupted. FIFA is a different story. Turks & Caicos and Tahiti are likely getting a disproportionate share of football development funding -- not because there is greater need/opportunity in those countries, but because their votes in FIFA committees are for sale.

(01-06-2015 17:51 )tjl007 Wrote:  Wonder how many people will buy fifa 16 game

I think at best EA Sports are probably distancing themselves from what is going on, but I do think they should have a cheeky dig and consider putting in a corruption made!! Min you maybe that mode would work better in Football Manger 2016!!

I look at this and still think that UEFA's stance will probably come to no more than England themselves withdrawing from the 2018 World Cup and the way UEFA voted in the election.
As one pundit has said that if UEFA was really serious with it's threat then it has to garner several alliances from other countries and Confederations, say with the Latin American, Australia and the US but I would not be surprised if Russia tries to force Blatter into imposing some sort of points penalty on the US for the FBI involvement.
But even if UEFA did pull of it's threat I doubt if Blatter would even be bothered or care very much about what UEFA did.
This has the hallmarks of creating in the situation akin to the PDC?BDO situation in Darts and also in boxing where you have totally different world champions. Whether that would be a good thing for football I'm not sure.

(01-06-2015 19:00 )Goodfella3041 Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 17:47 )babelover48 Wrote:  Very clever but surely Country B WOULD have brought the payment into question if it had noticed it was £20m short?

Not 100% sure what you mean by this, but if I have understood correctly, then you are questioning why -- even in a completely legitimate distribution of funds -- some countries would receive more or less than others (?)

There is actually nothing wrong or unusual about that. Every FIFA member is entitled to a "base" amount (which is in the hundreds of thousands, not the millions). Then they apply for extra funds for "football development" projects through the FIFA funding programmes. If they are like every other funding programme, then they will always be hugely oversubscribed with more funding requests than there are funds available. There will therefore be some procedure for applying and some set of criteria for assessing applications. So the funds will be unevenly distributed depending on the volume and strength of applications in any given year.

That's no different to the way that the FA or Sport England or UK Sport distribute funding across this country -- it doesn't spread evenly on either a flat rate or a per capita basis.

But wherever you have a subjective decision-making process, you have an opportunity for corruption. In this country, I'd wager that decision-making can -- at times -- be incompetent or mismanaged, but not intentionally corrupted. FIFA is a different story. Turks & Caicos and Tahiti are likely getting a disproportionate share of football development funding -- not because there is greater need/opportunity in those countries, but because their votes in FIFA committees are for sale.

I apologise if it looked like that I was questioning you maybe I interpreted way differently, but by the same token it does smack a little of how players agents milk the system of getting their players transferred
too.