Algarveaddick said:

cafctom said:

The ‘breakaway’ idea sounds good in theory but in practice I wouldn’t see it getting off the ground.

Regardless of how much FIFA are hated by the hardcore supporters club fans, the vast majority simply don’t care about their shenanigans. That tournament is the absolute holy grail of football around the world. 

And when it really comes down to it, I don’t even think the dedicated fans would truly buy into an alternative. Look at the Nations League. It’s a great concept, but the majority of fans sat in their armchairs see it as a waste of time because it doesn’t hold the gravitas of what a major tournament brings. They want the World Cup. And not  some new version of it either. They want the one that has the history and lineage of Pele, Maradona, Bobby Moore and Messi.

And the second reason why the breakaway doesn’t work, is because so many of the smaller nations absolutely love FIFA. That’s where their funding comes from. And that’s why Infantino gets their vote. The football associations of Comoros or Mali aren’t bothered about World Cup tickets being too expensive for fans….but they will love the fact that the major revenues it brings in will partially go to them. And their one vote is just as powerful as the single vote Spain, England, Germany etc have. 

Really what needs to happen is for millions and millions of fans worldwide to reject what FIFA throws at them, so that we see political change in their organisation. But sadly that just won’t happen when it comes down to it. The World Cup is a precious event that only happens every four years, and will always hold that emotional grip over people so that they open their wallets when it comes down to it. 

I’m as much a culprit in the fact that I pay my money for tickets, watch the games on TV, buy the merchandise etc. But the practical solution of an alternative I think is beyond reach. Capitalism always wins out, and that’s not just a football/FIFA issue.

It would not be seen as a holy grail without the seven nations I mention. Look how people have turned their back on the world's oldest cup competition just because the leading clubs leave a few of their stars out of the starting XI until the semi-finals...

No need for Mali or East Timor to vote for anything, they won't be involved until they ask to join the new set up. The lineage you mention is kind of the point - all four played for nations that would (in my world) be involved from the start. With the exception of Uruguay all the former winners are in that group.

I am not talking about setting up an elite alternative, any nation that is currently a FIFA member that wants to join should be allowed in. It will just be run by better, more principled people.   

As long as financially the new set up mostly mirrors the present one, why would other nations not want to join? 

  

bobmunro said:

Algarveaddick said:

cafctom said:

The ‘breakaway’ idea sounds good in theory but in practice I wouldn’t see it getting off the ground.

Regardless of how much FIFA are hated by the hardcore supporters club fans, the vast majority simply don’t care about their shenanigans. That tournament is the absolute holy grail of football around the world. 

And when it really comes down to it, I don’t even think the dedicated fans would truly buy into an alternative. Look at the Nations League. It’s a great concept, but the majority of fans sat in their armchairs see it as a waste of time because it doesn’t hold the gravitas of what a major tournament brings. They want the World Cup. And not  some new version of it either. They want the one that has the history and lineage of Pele, Maradona, Bobby Moore and Messi.

And the second reason why the breakaway doesn’t work, is because so many of the smaller nations absolutely love FIFA. That’s where their funding comes from. And that’s why Infantino gets their vote. The football associations of Comoros or Mali aren’t bothered about World Cup tickets being too expensive for fans….but they will love the fact that the major revenues it brings in will partially go to them. And their one vote is just as powerful as the single vote Spain, England, Germany etc have. 

Really what needs to happen is for millions and millions of fans worldwide to reject what FIFA throws at them, so that we see political change in their organisation. But sadly that just won’t happen when it comes down to it. The World Cup is a precious event that only happens every four years, and will always hold that emotional grip over people so that they open their wallets when it comes down to it. 

I’m as much a culprit in the fact that I pay my money for tickets, watch the games on TV, buy the merchandise etc. But the practical solution of an alternative I think is beyond reach. Capitalism always wins out, and that’s not just a football/FIFA issue.

It would not be seen as a holy grail without the seven nations I mention. Look how people have turned their back on the world's oldest cup competition just because the leading clubs leave a few of their stars out of the starting XI until the semi-finals...

No need for Mali or East Timor to vote for anything, they won't be involved until they ask to join the new set up. The lineage you mention is kind of the point - all four played for nations that would (in my world) be involved from the start. With the exception of Uruguay all the former winners are in that group.

I am not talking about setting up an elite alternative, any nation that is currently a FIFA member that wants to join should be allowed in. It will just be run by better, more principled people.   

As long as financially the new set up mostly mirrors the present one, why would other nations not want to join? 

  

Call me an old cynic - different but just as corruptible people.

Algarveaddick said:

cafctom said:

The ‘breakaway’ idea sounds good in theory but in practice I wouldn’t see it getting off the ground.

Regardless of how much FIFA are hated by the hardcore supporters club fans, the vast majority simply don’t care about their shenanigans. That tournament is the absolute holy grail of football around the world. 

And when it really comes down to it, I don’t even think the dedicated fans would truly buy into an alternative. Look at the Nations League. It’s a great concept, but the majority of fans sat in their armchairs see it as a waste of time because it doesn’t hold the gravitas of what a major tournament brings. They want the World Cup. And not  some new version of it either. They want the one that has the history and lineage of Pele, Maradona, Bobby Moore and Messi.

And the second reason why the breakaway doesn’t work, is because so many of the smaller nations absolutely love FIFA. That’s where their funding comes from. And that’s why Infantino gets their vote. The football associations of Comoros or Mali aren’t bothered about World Cup tickets being too expensive for fans….but they will love the fact that the major revenues it brings in will partially go to them. And their one vote is just as powerful as the single vote Spain, England, Germany etc have. 

Really what needs to happen is for millions and millions of fans worldwide to reject what FIFA throws at them, so that we see political change in their organisation. But sadly that just won’t happen when it comes down to it. The World Cup is a precious event that only happens every four years, and will always hold that emotional grip over people so that they open their wallets when it comes down to it. 

I’m as much a culprit in the fact that I pay my money for tickets, watch the games on TV, buy the merchandise etc. But the practical solution of an alternative I think is beyond reach. Capitalism always wins out, and that’s not just a football/FIFA issue.

It would not be seen as a holy grail without the seven nations I mention. Look how people have turned their back on the world's oldest cup competition just because the leading clubs leave a few of their stars out of the starting XI until the semi-finals...

No need for Mali or East Timor to vote for anything, they won't be involved until they ask to join the new set up. The lineage you mention is kind of the point - all four played for nations that would (in my world) be involved from the start. With the exception of Uruguay all the former winners are in that group.

I am not talking about setting up an elite alternative, any nation that is currently a FIFA member that wants to join should be allowed in. It will just be run by better, more principled people.   

As long as financially the new set up mostly mirrors the present one, why would other nations not want to join? 

  

SomervilleAddick said:

Algarveaddick said:

bobmunro said:

Algarveaddick said:

cafctom said:

The ‘breakaway’ idea sounds good in theory but in practice I wouldn’t see it getting off the ground.

Regardless of how much FIFA are hated by the hardcore supporters club fans, the vast majority simply don’t care about their shenanigans. That tournament is the absolute holy grail of football around the world. 

And when it really comes down to it, I don’t even think the dedicated fans would truly buy into an alternative. Look at the Nations League. It’s a great concept, but the majority of fans sat in their armchairs see it as a waste of time because it doesn’t hold the gravitas of what a major tournament brings. They want the World Cup. And not  some new version of it either. They want the one that has the history and lineage of Pele, Maradona, Bobby Moore and Messi.

And the second reason why the breakaway doesn’t work, is because so many of the smaller nations absolutely love FIFA. That’s where their funding comes from. And that’s why Infantino gets their vote. The football associations of Comoros or Mali aren’t bothered about World Cup tickets being too expensive for fans….but they will love the fact that the major revenues it brings in will partially go to them. And their one vote is just as powerful as the single vote Spain, England, Germany etc have. 

Really what needs to happen is for millions and millions of fans worldwide to reject what FIFA throws at them, so that we see political change in their organisation. But sadly that just won’t happen when it comes down to it. The World Cup is a precious event that only happens every four years, and will always hold that emotional grip over people so that they open their wallets when it comes down to it. 

I’m as much a culprit in the fact that I pay my money for tickets, watch the games on TV, buy the merchandise etc. But the practical solution of an alternative I think is beyond reach. Capitalism always wins out, and that’s not just a football/FIFA issue.

It would not be seen as a holy grail without the seven nations I mention. Look how people have turned their back on the world's oldest cup competition just because the leading clubs leave a few of their stars out of the starting XI until the semi-finals...

No need for Mali or East Timor to vote for anything, they won't be involved until they ask to join the new set up. The lineage you mention is kind of the point - all four played for nations that would (in my world) be involved from the start. With the exception of Uruguay all the former winners are in that group.

I am not talking about setting up an elite alternative, any nation that is currently a FIFA member that wants to join should be allowed in. It will just be run by better, more principled people.   

As long as financially the new set up mostly mirrors the present one, why would other nations not want to join? 

  

Call me an old cynic - different but just as corruptible people.

I don't think that is cynical, it's the world we live in. But it could start with a few years of decent people running it and put in place solid principles. We can't give up hope, Bob.  

It needs a concrete policy for funding the smaller nations which can’t be modified by the president. Take away his power to send money at his discretion, and suddenly his influence diminishes significantly. Not easy, but they have to find away to stop the president buying votes. 

Swindon_Addick said:

SomervilleAddick said:

Algarveaddick said:

bobmunro said:

Algarveaddick said:

cafctom said:

The ‘breakaway’ idea sounds good in theory but in practice I wouldn’t see it getting off the ground.

Regardless of how much FIFA are hated by the hardcore supporters club fans, the vast majority simply don’t care about their shenanigans. That tournament is the absolute holy grail of football around the world. 

And when it really comes down to it, I don’t even think the dedicated fans would truly buy into an alternative. Look at the Nations League. It’s a great concept, but the majority of fans sat in their armchairs see it as a waste of time because it doesn’t hold the gravitas of what a major tournament brings. They want the World Cup. And not  some new version of it either. They want the one that has the history and lineage of Pele, Maradona, Bobby Moore and Messi.

And the second reason why the breakaway doesn’t work, is because so many of the smaller nations absolutely love FIFA. That’s where their funding comes from. And that’s why Infantino gets their vote. The football associations of Comoros or Mali aren’t bothered about World Cup tickets being too expensive for fans….but they will love the fact that the major revenues it brings in will partially go to them. And their one vote is just as powerful as the single vote Spain, England, Germany etc have. 

Really what needs to happen is for millions and millions of fans worldwide to reject what FIFA throws at them, so that we see political change in their organisation. But sadly that just won’t happen when it comes down to it. The World Cup is a precious event that only happens every four years, and will always hold that emotional grip over people so that they open their wallets when it comes down to it. 

I’m as much a culprit in the fact that I pay my money for tickets, watch the games on TV, buy the merchandise etc. But the practical solution of an alternative I think is beyond reach. Capitalism always wins out, and that’s not just a football/FIFA issue.

It would not be seen as a holy grail without the seven nations I mention. Look how people have turned their back on the world's oldest cup competition just because the leading clubs leave a few of their stars out of the starting XI until the semi-finals...

No need for Mali or East Timor to vote for anything, they won't be involved until they ask to join the new set up. The lineage you mention is kind of the point - all four played for nations that would (in my world) be involved from the start. With the exception of Uruguay all the former winners are in that group.

I am not talking about setting up an elite alternative, any nation that is currently a FIFA member that wants to join should be allowed in. It will just be run by better, more principled people.   

As long as financially the new set up mostly mirrors the present one, why would other nations not want to join? 

  

Call me an old cynic - different but just as corruptible people.

I don't think that is cynical, it's the world we live in. But it could start with a few years of decent people running it and put in place solid principles. We can't give up hope, Bob.  

It needs a concrete policy for funding the smaller nations which can’t be modified by the president. Take away his power to send money at his discretion, and suddenly his influence diminishes significantly. Not easy, but they have to find away to stop the president buying votes. 

In theory, that could be done. It would just need one non-corrupt president of FIFA to be elected so that rules could be established to make future corruption more difficult.

Sadly, Infantino's predecessor was Blatter, who was even worse, and Blatter's predecessor was Havelange who was pretty much corruption personified. And his predecessor ... retired in 1974. Personally I think we're into "take off and nuke it from orbit" territory.