Not worthy of a thread - 2018 FIFA World Cup edition

[biggs]

They'll never get the go-ahead to move to the winter anyway.

 

I don't really like it, but Qatar won the voting, and now they'll have to find a way to have it there. Impossible to have it there during the summer. Sepp Blatter deserves everything he gets the absolute twatface.

 

Qatar won the vote based on a summer WC.  Hope the yanks and the aussies sue FIFA to hell and back if they try to move it.

Not one person on the FIFA committee questioned the weather at that time of year ,Qatar obviously did not give a shit understandably but wtf where the others thinking 

[jdckelly]

They'll never get the go-ahead to move to the winter anyway.

 

I don't really like it, but Qatar won the voting, and now they'll have to find a way to have it there. Impossible to have it there during the summer. Sepp Blatter deserves everything he gets the absolute twatface.

 

Qatar won the vote based on a summer WC.  Hope the yanks and the aussies sue FIFA to hell and back if they try to move it.

Not one person on the FIFA committee questioned the weather at that time of year ,Qatar obviously did not give a shit understandably but wtf where the others thinking 

they were thinking about the large amounts of cash placed in their pockets by Qatar

[biggs]

They'll never get the go-ahead to move to the winter anyway.

 

I don't really like it, but Qatar won the voting, and now they'll have to find a way to have it there. Impossible to have it there during the summer. Sepp Blatter deserves everything he gets the absolute twatface.

 

Qatar won the vote based on a summer WC.  Hope the yanks and the aussies sue FIFA to hell and back if they try to move it.

Not one person on the FIFA committee questioned the weather at that time of year ,Qatar obviously did not give a shit understandably but wtf where the others thinking 

they were thinking about the large amounts of cash placed in their pockets by Qatar

silly me arguably a few whispers in the ear and an offer you cannot refuse may have made a difference but Fifa are now clean as a whistle these days 

[Incognito]

When Sepp Blatter was asked who his favourite Qatar player was, he replied Eric Clapton.

[Deuce]

To be fair to Blatter, he didn't vote for Qatar himself. Still a scumbag, mind.

[Kaizero]

They'll never get the go-ahead to move to the winter anyway.

 

Disagree.  Seems like more and more people are agreeing with the winter move.

 

It's just so farcial. The other nations bid in good faith thinking it would be a summer World Cup, as it has always been. Then they up and change the rules. It's frustrating more than anything else that they get away with it. Fucking cunts.

[Kaizero]

They'll never get the go-ahead to move to the winter anyway.

 

I don't really like it, but Qatar won the voting, and now they'll have to find a way to have it there. Impossible to have it there during the summer. Sepp Blatter deserves everything he gets the absolute twatface.

 

Qatar won the vote based on a summer WC.  Hope the yanks and the aussies sue FIFA to hell and back if they try to move it.

Not one person on the FIFA committee questioned the weather at that time of year ,Qatar obviously did not give a shit understandably but wtf where the others thinking 

 

They scored the lowest score of any bidding nation in WC bidding history on FIFAs own "suitability" report before the voting.

[Guest antz1uk]

what gets me is the likes of ferdinand, beckham, all of these high profile footballers going out to africa for so called good causes, why cant the footballers raise this so something is done, the suffering of all of these migrant workers is disgusting, they should lose the world cup on this basis alone, the fa's around the world should be doing something about it. all the money trickling down and the amounts qatar has, yet these people will be getting peanuts. horrific

[Flip]

They'll never get the go-ahead to move to the winter anyway.

 

I don't really like it, but Qatar won the voting, and now they'll have to find a way to have it there. Impossible to have it there during the summer. Sepp Blatter deserves everything he gets the absolute twatface.

 

Qatar won the vote based on a summer WC.  Hope the yanks and the aussies sue FIFA to hell and back if they try to move it.

 

No they won a vote based on a World Cup in Football. And if it's down to Qatar themselves they'd play it in June/July, probably bigger chance of them winning. This is a FIFA and footballing federations voting. Now Blatter has himself a lot to argue since he and his colleagues weren't complaining when they were getting their pockets filled with money.

 

They can't remove the World Cup from Qatar, they won the voting. Now it's down to FIFA to arrange it in a good way or burn their own money on helping Qatar make it possible to host it in the summer.

[jdckelly]

what gets me is the likes of ferdinand, beckham, all of these high profile footballers going out to africa for so called good causes, why cant the footballers raise this so something is done, the suffering of all of these migrant workers is disgusting, they should lose the world cup on this basis alone, the fa's around the world should be doing something about it. all the money trickling down and the amounts qatar has, yet these people will be getting peanuts. horrific

Beckhams supporting a winter world cup............

[Flip]

what gets me is the likes of ferdinand, beckham, all of these high profile footballers going out to africa for so called good causes, why cant the footballers raise this so something is done, the suffering of all of these migrant workers is disgusting, they should lose the world cup on this basis alone, the fa's around the world should be doing something about it. all the money trickling down and the amounts qatar has, yet these people will be getting peanuts. horrific

 

I don't like this reasoning, this stuff about migrant workers happens all around the world. You think Sweden is perfect? Well ask the Cameroonians and Thai's who are stuck in northern sweden without money to go back home because they've been paid as slaves.

[jdckelly]

World Cup 2022: senior Fifa official says handing Qatar summer finals was a 'mistake' and 'very risky'

Senior official says Fifa made "mistake" in handing Qatar 2022 World Cup finals and players and spectators' health will be put at risk

 

Qatar won the 2022 World Cup bidding race before Fifa considered the inspection reports, according to the leader of the team who wrote the summaries. Harold Mayne-Nicholls, the former Fifa official, described the 2022 decision “a mistake” and called for a new voting process to stop executive committee members agreeing “deals”.

Mayne-Nicholls will tell a Leaders in Sport conference in London on Wednesday that Fifa must put politics aside and obey the recommendations of its task force when deciding an autumn/winter slot for Qatar 2022. His view that Fifa effectively ignored his team’s report adds weight to the suspicion that money and power counted for more than practicalities.

“When we made a report, they had a look at it, but the decision was taken before,” said Mayne-Nicholls, who now runs a charitable sporting foundation called Ganamos Todos in his native Chile. “Or the word was given: 'I gave you my word that I will vote for you,’ even when the report was not on the table. We need to change the system of how we elect who will be hosting the World Cup. We cannot keep this system. It has too many imperfections, for the legacy of the World Cup, and for Fifa.”

Speaking to The Telegraph, Mayne-Nicholls called for an “untouchable” expert commission to produce a ranking, with a three-nation shortlist, which would be taken to the Fifa ­congress, on the basis of one country, one vote. “We do it in a very short time, so it will be really difficult to concentrate the power of the votes.”

Almost three years into the wrangling over whether Qatar 2022 will be moved from summer to winter, the lead inspector insisted there was no evidence of corruption, but agreed that Fifa ignored his evidence.

“Unless they find something immoral or illegal I don’t think Qatar will lose the chance to stage the World Cup,” he said. “They got it. That’s democracy. But we need to work on the future. If not, we will be in a loop, making the same mistakes. Whatever they decide must be decided by the Exco [Fifa executive committee], but I would expect this time they will follow the proposals [of Fifa’s task force]. If not we go from one mistake to another. That will be even worse.”

How exactly Qatar won the 2022 bidding race remained unexplained. Mayne-Nicholls said: “Let’s say commerce, the power of money. They were very ambitious. They pushed hard. Qatar also wanted the Olympics, and bid for them, but the technicians said no.

“The decision was taken in December 2010. We are almost three years from then. There’s not a single way to prove that something anti-ethical was done. The football family, the media, are unable to prove things were not done in the right way. In my case, I went there, I wrote the report book, and nobody offered me anything, in any of the bids. So how can I say, yes, this was a problem?”

Choosing a new slot in the calendar was, he said, fraught with problems: “You have to delete July. From what I’ve been hearing, we have four chances. One is April, but if we do it in April all the leagues must be ­finished by March and will not be seen again until August. That would be chaotic for the football family. The second one I’ve heard is to do it in October/November. That’s OK, it’s not so warm as June and July, but you will have conflicts with all the club competitions all over the world. They are all playing, and we must stop them all, or it’s not fair.

“The third one is January/February. That’s OK, it’s cool there. It’s 20-25 degrees, cool enough to play ­football. But then you have problems with the three biggest leagues: Spain, Italy and the Premier League, because you don’t have breaks at that time. You have breaks in Germany, France and Russia, but not here. Here in England, you have Boxing Day and New Year’s Day games: huge icons.

“How about the middle of May to the middle of June? We would have to investigate the weather conditions then. There is not a perfect solution for this.”

Mayne-Nicholls could not explain how England’s 2018 bid failed so ­miserably: “You can always lose, but what I cannot understand is that you got two votes in the first round. Why two votes when the bid presentation was, if not No  1, very close to No 1? It’s only political, it’s not commercial, or communications, or legal, or the ­government, or the football. But you were not able to convince them.”

Russia 2018 will be a success, he insisted: “Russia is a different story [to Qatar]. They have a big cultural basis, very strong. It’s a country you can visit. They don’t have this weather. They have a football tradition. They have something to show to the world. I’m not saying they were the perfect hosts, but I don’t think Russia will be a problem, and they are organising this with Sochi [the Winter Olympics], which will give them major practice for the World Cup.”

He believed Fifa will survive one World Cup fiasco, but not a second: “It’s created a bad image for the World Cup, but we have 2018 and we will have 2026. We will lose credibility, but the players will show the [Fifa] board members, the press and the politicians, the right way to do things, in the game itself. They will prepare themselves and play. It doesn’t matter if they have to do it on the moon. As we say in Spanish, it’s for the glory.”

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/10365074/World-Cup-2022-senior-Fifa-official-says-handing-Qatar-summer-finals-was-a-mistake-and-very-risky.html

[Disco]

@DickinsonTimes 50s

Michel Platini makes a huge stir in The Times tomorrow. Advocates a 40-team World Cup. Thinks it will happen.

 

[Ketsbaia]

With a 24-team Euro, I guess it'd make sense. Not that it's a good thing.

[jdckelly]

@DickinsonTimes 50s

Michel Platini makes a huge stir in The Times tomorrow. Advocates a 40-team World Cup. Thinks it will happen.

 

Matt Dickinson ‏@DickinsonTimes 14s

 

Blatter wants to cut European places at World Cup. This is Platini's riposte - increase from 32 to 40 with extra team(s) for each continent

 

god almighty why do FIFA want to ruin their own tournement

[Disco]

Because TV rights money is lucrative and that is all that matters.

[Deuce]

@DickinsonTimes 50s

Michel Platini makes a huge stir in The Times tomorrow. Advocates a 40-team World Cup. Thinks it will happen.

 

 

Terrible idea. The slots allotted each region need to be re-distributed, but that's about it.

[Ameritoon]

Today is just terrible

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

@DickinsonTimes 50s

Michel Platini makes a huge stir in The Times tomorrow. Advocates a 40-team World Cup. Thinks it will happen.

 

I think it is a clever idea if done correctly. I proposed my idea on this forum before, where 24 of the teams (based on the seeded sides and the highest ranked qualifiers from each federation) are guaranteed entry to the group stages and the remaining 16 teams play a new first round of knockout ties to determine which eight sides join the other twenty four in the groups. It would be very entertaining.

 

FIFA are probably thinking of a double group stage though, which can be tedious.

[Ketsbaia]

Wonder if its 10 groups of 4, or 8 of 5.

[jdckelly]

Wonder if its 10 groups of 4, or 8 of 5.

Matt Dickinson ‏@DickinsonTimes 2h

 

@MiguelDelaney still 8 groups in Platini model. 8 x 5. Claims it's only 3 extra days. Can't say I agree, mind

 

another 3 days and the standards of the world cup lowered even more, hell lets just invite everyone and have one giant 209 team tournament!

[Deuce]

There are many reasons why Michel Platini's plan to expand the World Cup is a bad idea, chief among them is that it is Michel Platini's plan. It's nothing personal; I'm just not sure that there's another human being out there who is worse at organising competitions.

 

It was Platini who hit upon the idea of replacing the UEFA Cup with the Europa League, a competition that is just like the Champions League but without any of the glamour, excitement and prestige. While a normal person might have pushed for a competition with its own identity, like a giant unseeded knockout tournament, Platini tried to one-up a lager with a shandy.

 

In its original incarnation, the Europa League had eight groups of five with teams playing each other only once, their home and away fixtures chosen arbitrarily. Genius. In both versions, the entire group stage is rendered pointless by the policy of dropping Champions League failures into the knockout stages.

 

Since 1996, the European championships have often been more exciting than the World Cup. With only eight of 16 nations progressing to the knockout stage, every game counts and there aren't many whipping boys to smooth the way. There are just 31 fixtures in the entire tournament; it's swift, it's punchy and it's fun. So naturally, Platini has decided to change it.

 

In 2016, 24 nations will trudge through 51 games, many of which will be utterly pointless. Of the 24 qualifiers, 16 will progress to the knockout rounds. Four of them will have finished third in their four-team pool, quite possibly without winning a single game. This is the tiresome format that was introduced at the 1986 World Cup, something you would expect Platini to remember, given that he actually played in it. Even FIFA eventually recognised the flaws in the system, shifting to a more balanced -- though still undeniably hefty -- 32 nations in 1998. And now Platini wants to change that too.

 

Platini claims that the motivation behind his idea is that it will "make more people happy," but this is the kind of one-dimensional, emotive pap that wouldn't fool a small child. If 40 teams make people happy, why not have 60 and make them really happy? Hell, why not have all 209 nations there and send the planet into serotonin-charged convulsions? Because it's nonsense, that's why.

 

More teams won't make people happy -- it will make people bored. Sport is only exciting when it is tense. There must be risk, there must be danger, there must be something to lose. The only way a four-team group becomes a more exciting five-team group is if the fifth team is better than the others, but how can that be the case? Are we going to discover hidden islands where they cracked tiki-taka in the 1960s and have since developed styles of play more exciting than anything we can imagine?

 

The introduction of Venezuela or Scotland will not unduly concern Brazil or Spain. Throw a smaller fish into the pond and it will be gobbled up by the big fish. We're not making the football better; we're making it longer. And that doesn't make me happy.

 

But then, Platini's motivation was never to make people happy. Platini's motivation is to run FIFA. He believes that he will win the support of more nations if, firstly, he gives them a chance to reach a World Cup and secondly, if he squeezes more money out of that World Cup. The dramatic increase in fixtures will force up the price of TV rights and advertising revenue. Making people happy, or making football exciting, has nothing to do with it.

 

You only have to look at the disastrous ICC Cricket World Cup of 2007 to see what happens when you over-stretch a competition. That godforsaken dirge lasted six weeks, took in 51 games over two group stages and then a brief knockout, by which point the few remaining supporters there were begging for salvation. Viewing figures were low, seats went unsold in their thousands and the competition still hasn't recovered. In sport, as in so much else, more isn't necessarily better.

 

Platini has ruined the UEFA Cup and he is about to ruin the European championships. He must not be allowed to ruin the World Cup as well. It takes a hell of a candidate to make Sepp Blatter look like the sensible option for the future of world football, but even Blatter wouldn't try and pull a stunt like this.

 

http://espnfc.com/blog/_/name/bootroom/id/543?cc=5901

[Magpie]

There are many reasons why Michel Platini's plan to expand the World Cup is a bad idea, chief among them is that it is Michel Platini's plan. It's nothing personal; I'm just not sure that there's another human being out there who is worse at organising competitions.

 

It was Platini who hit upon the idea of replacing the UEFA Cup with the Europa League, a competition that is just like the Champions League but without any of the glamour, excitement and prestige. While a normal person might have pushed for a competition with its own identity, like a giant unseeded knockout tournament, Platini tried to one-up a lager with a shandy.

 

In its original incarnation, the Europa League had eight groups of five with teams playing each other only once, their home and away fixtures chosen arbitrarily. Genius. In both versions, the entire group stage is rendered pointless by the policy of dropping Champions League failures into the knockout stages.

 

Since 1996, the European championships have often been more exciting than the World Cup. With only eight of 16 nations progressing to the knockout stage, every game counts and there aren't many whipping boys to smooth the way. There are just 31 fixtures in the entire tournament; it's swift, it's punchy and it's fun. So naturally, Platini has decided to change it.

 

In 2016, 24 nations will trudge through 51 games, many of which will be utterly pointless. Of the 24 qualifiers, 16 will progress to the knockout rounds. Four of them will have finished third in their four-team pool, quite possibly without winning a single game. This is the tiresome format that was introduced at the 1986 World Cup, something you would expect Platini to remember, given that he actually played in it. Even FIFA eventually recognised the flaws in the system, shifting to a more balanced -- though still undeniably hefty -- 32 nations in 1998. And now Platini wants to change that too.

 

Platini claims that the motivation behind his idea is that it will "make more people happy," but this is the kind of one-dimensional, emotive pap that wouldn't fool a small child. If 40 teams make people happy, why not have 60 and make them really happy? Hell, why not have all 209 nations there and send the planet into serotonin-charged convulsions? Because it's nonsense, that's why.

 

More teams won't make people happy -- it will make people bored. Sport is only exciting when it is tense. There must be risk, there must be danger, there must be something to lose. The only way a four-team group becomes a more exciting five-team group is if the fifth team is better than the others, but how can that be the case? Are we going to discover hidden islands where they cracked tiki-taka in the 1960s and have since developed styles of play more exciting than anything we can imagine?

 

The introduction of Venezuela or Scotland will not unduly concern Brazil or Spain. Throw a smaller fish into the pond and it will be gobbled up by the big fish. We're not making the football better; we're making it longer. And that doesn't make me happy.

 

But then, Platini's motivation was never to make people happy. Platini's motivation is to run FIFA. He believes that he will win the support of more nations if, firstly, he gives them a chance to reach a World Cup and secondly, if he squeezes more money out of that World Cup. The dramatic increase in fixtures will force up the price of TV rights and advertising revenue. Making people happy, or making football exciting, has nothing to do with it.

 

You only have to look at the disastrous ICC Cricket World Cup of 2007 to see what happens when you over-stretch a competition. That godforsaken dirge lasted six weeks, took in 51 games over two group stages and then a brief knockout, by which point the few remaining supporters there were begging for salvation. Viewing figures were low, seats went unsold in their thousands and the competition still hasn't recovered. In sport, as in so much else, more isn't necessarily better.

 

Platini has ruined the UEFA Cup and he is about to ruin the European championships. He must not be allowed to ruin the World Cup as well. It takes a hell of a candidate to make Sepp Blatter look like the sensible option for the future of world football, but even Blatter wouldn't try and pull a stunt like this.

 

http://espnfc.com/blog/_/name/bootroom/id/543?cc=5901

 

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

I disagree with almost every single point made in that article. The Europa League isn't any more or less broken then before. You can talk about format all you want to, but the problems with that tournament will persist as long as monetary incentive is low in comparison to the league for clubs in higher tier leagues. When you factor in the fact that second tier teams in top leagues and top teams in the lower leagues generally have smaller squad than those of the CL behemoths, this is what you get as a result. A knockout may be more interesting, but surely less matches would mean less prize money, less money in gates, and less TV money for participating, all of which would exacerbate the original issues.

 

The author is quick to dismiss the likes of Venezuela and Scotland, but the truth is that there are definitely 40 teams in the world capable of contributing to a competitive World Cup. This isn't cricket either, it is one of the biggest events mankind has produced. I doubt interest will wane in any significant manner.

 

The 24 team Euro is stupid because 24 teams is simply a poor number for a tournament of this style. In fact, anything where we are comparing third place teams group by group is going to be tedious and a waste of time. I would propose a 20 team Euro, with a pre-group stage, knockout round, but this idea never seems to stick with anyone other than myself.

[Disco]

Any final tournament number that doesn't lend itself to a round robin format should be immediately discounted on terms of idiocy. 32 or 16. No mo', no less.

 

Baba is spot on about the UEFA Cup though.

 

Also...

 

Another day, another wearying proposal to ruin football. This time it was Michel Platini, the Uefa president who long ago surpassed Sepp Blatter as the global game's greatest nonsense machine, who shook the kaleidoscope of self-interest and came up with a proposal to expand the World Cup finals from 32 to 40 teams. More games! More countries! More fans! More money! More votes! Hurrah!

 

Let nobody be in any doubt what Platini's proposal, revealed on Monday in the Times, is about. It's about the Fifa presidency, whether in 2015, when it seems increasingly likely Blatter will stand again, using the issue of the Qatar World Cup in 2022 to pressure Platini (the main cheerleader for Qatar outside of Asia), or in 2019. Blatter's pre-hustings jockeying last week saw him promising extra places at the World Cup for Asia and Africa, and so Platini replied by suggesting more places for everybody, something he presumably hopes will gain him support in Africa and Asia without losing votes back in Europe.

 

The argument that the African and Asian confederations are underrepresented at the World Cup is ludicrous, as explained in detail here. To sum up the argument, though, at the 2014 finals, there will be 13 teams from Uefa, 5.5 from Conmebol (South America), 5 from CAF (Africa), 4.5 from the AFC (Asia), 3.5 from Concacaf (North & Central America) and 0.5 from the OFC (Oceania). The Fifa rankings show the top 32 teams in the world consist of 20 from Uefa, six from Conmebol, three from CAF and Concacaf and none from the AFC or OFC. Or, to take the Elo rankings, which many deem a better system, the top 32 comprises 18 from Uefa, 6 from Conmebol, three from CAF and Concacaf, two from the AFC and none from the OFC.

 

This raises the issue of what a tournament is. If the World Cup is aimed at gathering the best 32 teams in the world to battle each other for the right to be considered supreme, it turns out Uefa is already under-represented and AFC and CAF over-represented. But of course it's not as simple as that: there is a need to create a global spectacle and to offer encouragement to football regions that are still developing – while still possessing sufficient quality that the tournament retains a competitive edge. The CAF president Issa Hayatou's whines that only a tenth of his members qualify while half of Conmebol's do would carry a lot more credibility if five of the six CAF teams hadn't been eliminated in the group stage in South Africa while four of Conmebol's five made it to the quarter-finals.

 

But what about the practicalities? What would a 25% increase in the number of teams, a shift from eight groups of four to eight of five with the top two going through, mean in real terms? The early rounds are already packed with matches featuring moderate sides gamely holding out against better teams – and doing so relatively successfully because a defensive system is easier to organise than an attacking one, and the better side hasn't spent the time together that it would have had at club level to find the slickness and precision to outwit a massed rearguard. So we go from 48 group games to 80. Many would be stodgy, many would be dead rubbers and, because one team would have finished its games before the other four, the possibility of collusion in the final round would be enhanced.

 

Platini says the extra 32 games could be accommodated in just three additional days. In Brazil, the group stage will be played over 15 days. There's one game on the first day, one day of four games (the first Saturday) and nine days of three games before the final group games, when teams in the same group play simultaneously – four games a day but only two kick-off times.

 

Extrapolate that and, assuming the same arrangement for the opening fixture and final group games, you would need 21 days to cram in the other group matches – so a total of 26 days. Maybe they increase the pace, so there are four matches every day. That's possible and it would mean the group stage could be completed in 16 days – actually just a day longer than will be taken in Brazil (although you wonder how many people would have the patience for the day's fourth game). Except it would increase the pressure on stadiums. Assuming a pitch needs three days to recover after a game, you'd need 16 stadiums; 12 will be used in Brazil.

 

And that's when the logistics start to become a little hazy. How many nations, realistically, have 16 World Cup-standard stadiums? Obviously it's great news for the building industry but given the white elephants that already stand as decaying monuments to Fifa's gigantism in Japan and South Africa, you might have hoped they'd have sought to avoid throwing up others.

 

How many nations could cope with the logistics of accommodating a further eight sides and their fans and media? Brazil is a huge country with a well-developed tourist infrastructure and already flights from Europe for next June have doubled in price while hostels and hotels are charging extraordinary premiums.

 

Perhaps the ultimate plan is to move away from a single host – that romantic ideal of a festival in which players, coaches, fans, journalists and scouts could mingle while watching games – and to host the World Cup in multiple centres, as will happen at Euro 2020. That would at least have the advantage of allowing smaller nations to bid for chunks of a World Cup, and the logistics of travel could hardly be worse than they are now, but it's a solution for a problem that need not exist.

 

Perhaps Platini really does believe the upheaval, the dilution of the tournament, is worth it to ensure that we can get a game on between Venezuela and Armenia or Panama and Scotland (to take just four countries who are in the top 40 in the Fifa rankings but haven't qualified), in which case he is simply misguided. It seems far more likely, though, that he is toying with what ought to be the world's greatest sporting event for the sake of his political career.