Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
World Cup 2026 - USA/Canada/Mexico
Comments
-
Algarveaddick said:
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...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.
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.
4 -
https://www.thetimes.com/article/b5c42016-63dd-483d-9ce4-d535252f4760
World Cup supporters to be charged to attend fan park for first time
Tickets are being sold to watch games on big screens at the ‘Fifa Fan Festival’ in New Jersey, even though admission has been free for such events at previous tournaments
4 -
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.bobmunro said:Algarveaddick said:
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...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.
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.0 -
bobmunro said:Algarveaddick said:
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...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.
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.Bob, you're an old cycnic.And regrettably I agree with you.3 -
It will? You sure about that? Based on what evidence?Algarveaddick said:
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...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.
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?
0 -
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.Algarveaddick said:
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.bobmunro said:Algarveaddick said:
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...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.
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.2 -
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.SomervilleAddick said:
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.Algarveaddick said:
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.bobmunro said:Algarveaddick said:
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...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.
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.
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.0 -
What is wrong with Americans?! I mean is anything free over there?? Bloody capitalist scum.Callumcafc said:https://www.thetimes.com/article/b5c42016-63dd-483d-9ce4-d535252f4760World Cup supporters to be charged to attend fan park for first time
Tickets are being sold to watch games on big screens at the ‘Fifa Fan Festival’ in New Jersey, even though admission has been free for such events at previous tournaments
(Due to this post I have now been banned from going there for the world cup. Well, who gives a fuck!)6 -
I’m not thinking FIFA here - I’m thinking a breakaway, where you can start from scratch. No FIFA president is going to agree to give up power.Swindon_Addick said:
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.SomervilleAddick said:
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.Algarveaddick said:
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.bobmunro said:Algarveaddick said:
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...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.
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.
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.1 -
Then it's not really a world competition is it. I'm all for the downfall of FIFA, but any new organisation needs to include everyone.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.
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.
0 -
Sponsored links:
-
As suggested in the petition I posted, it could be run by votes by season ticket holders from registered professional clubs of all the world’s football associations.Leroy Ambrose said:
It will? You sure about that? Based on what evidence?Algarveaddick said:
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...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.
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?
0 -
Why have you edited out my next paragraph where I clearly say "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."?Stu_of_Kunming said:
Then it's not really a world competition is it. I'm all for the downfall of FIFA, but any new organisation needs to include everyone.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.
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.
0 -
None. There is no evidence either way, but as I said earlier in the thread, we can hope.Leroy Ambrose said:
It will? You sure about that? Based on what evidence?Algarveaddick said:
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...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.
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?
0 -
Has any venue got a worse set of games than San Francisco?JUNE 13th—- QATAR vs SWITZERLANDJUNE 16th—- AUSTRIA vs JORDANJUNE 19th— TUR/ROU/SVK/KOS vs PARAGUAYJUNE 22nd—- JORDAN vs ALGERIAJUNE 25th—- PARAGUAY vs AUSTRALIA0
-
Without wishing to derail the thread I don't think it's a coincidence at all that SF has got that setof games2
-
Reuters are reporting a new round of US Visa bans with a much larger list of countries. If I've understood right, it isn't a permanent ban as was already applying to Haiti, Iran, Ivory Coast and Senegal, rather it's an indefinite pause on processing applications while they work out tighter rules so the new countries may be able to bring fans to the World Cup. Which is just as well, because Brazil's on the list (eek!). In the past, such bans have exempted players and coaches of WC teams, but not officials or fans.
I may have missed one or two, but here's my list of qualified countries that are currently suspended, in addition to the 4 fully banned:
Algeria
Brazil
Cape Verde
Colombia
Egypt
Ghana
Jordan
Morocco
Tunisia
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
0 -
I read that the US President - mustn’t mention his name - has blocked fans’ visa applications from 15 competing nations - including Brazil and Mexico! Is there nothing that man’s not capable of.0
-
Sorry, must learn to read previous posts before rushing to print.1
-
Considering the size of that new stadium (holding 70,000), they'll be giving the tickets away for peanuts as it gets closer to match day.MrOneLung said:Has any venue got a worse set of games than San Francisco?JUNE 13th—- QATAR vs SWITZERLANDJUNE 16th—- AUSTRIA vs JORDANJUNE 19th— TUR/ROU/SVK/KOS vs PARAGUAYJUNE 22nd—- JORDAN vs ALGERIAJUNE 25th—- PARAGUAY vs AUSTRALIA
Yet the hardcore fans who have to pay up front to guarantee their tickets end up paying extortionate prices.1 -
Because my issue would be running a ‘half a world cup’ for as long as the transition would take.Algarveaddick said:
Why have you edited out my next paragraph where I clearly say "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."?Stu_of_Kunming said:
Then it's not really a world competition is it. I'm all for the downfall of FIFA, but any new organisation needs to include everyone.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.
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.
Knowing our luck we’d win the first one, finally lifting a trophy in my life time and it would be basically meaningless.0
