5 ms·

CONCACAF and UEFA almost always vote together, but they are far outnumbered by every other region and FIFA only needs a majority vote for a rule to pass. You're

CONCACAF and UEFA almost always vote together, but they are far outnumbered by every other region and FIFA only needs a majority vote for a rule to pass. You're excluding about half of the planet by only mentioning Africa.

mikkom 2mo ago
Yeah but good luck having World Cup without any european country...
- nephihaha 2mo ago
  Yes, it's just been won by one! For me one of the gaping holes in this tournament was Italy. That would have been unthinkable years ago. It is strange seeing New Zealand there but not Russia, but there are political reasons for that.
illliillll 2mo ago
FIFA can't really exist in any way similar to it's current form without UEFA > You're excluding about half of the planet by only mentioning Africa. It's the half of the planet that nobody cares about when it comes to football.
- Departed7405 2mo ago
  The issue is every federation - whether they never qualified for the world cup or won final(s) - gets one vote. This has become a big issue, with any proposal to give more money (even if that entails compromising on key principles) to federations (by making more money) is almost certain to pass because of very poor FAs that need it / want it desperately.
  - wongarsu 2mo ago
    Yeah, but if UEFA stays true to their word, passing this proposal is guaranteed to lead to the end of a FIFA-led world cup. They have the votes to privatize the world cup, but in doing so would destroy the very thing they are trying to privatize, and likely destroy FIFA as a whole Meanwhile UEFA can just get together with South America and form a new governing body for a new world cup
ganzsz 2mo ago
Nobody is going to watch a worldcup if south America joins this boycott.
- dwedge 2mo ago
  Wondering about this. 10 years ago it was true but Brazil are a shadow of their former selves, and Argentina without the likes of Messi and Aguero aren't the same. I know they reached the final but Messi almost had the golden boot. Wouldn't be surprised to see Africa surpass South America in the next decade
Hamuko 2mo ago
UEFA leaving already leaves a pretty big gaping hole in any future FIFA tournament, since it'd exclude Spain (1st), England (3rd), France (4th), Norway (5th), Belgium (6th), Switzerland (joint 7th), Portugal (13th), Netherlands (17th), Germany (18th), Croatia (20th), Sweden (27th), Austria (28th), Bosnia and Herzegovina (29th). That's 75% of the final four and of the quarterfinals, 44% of the round of 16. Then if you add CONCACAF into the mix, it comes to 63% of the RO16.
- nephihaha 2mo ago
  Having Scotland back in the tournament was great, and the Tartan Army generated a lot of positive press, and was relatively well behaved.
zimpenfish 2mo ago
Since AFC have now joined them[0][1], FIFA no longer have the votes for this to pass. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/ce345l6kg6ro https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/ce345l6kg6ro - "Uefa - the body that governs European football - has 55 votes. Concacaf, which oversees football in North, Central America and the Caribbean, has 35 and Asia has 46." which only leaves 75 votes from the 211 and he'd need 106. [1] I've no idea why the BBC doesn't properly capitalise UEFA or CONCACAF. I assume it's either some weird style guide or the subeditors are having another day off.
- mediumdeviation 2mo ago
  On the capitalization, it seems the BBC will always use title case for acronyms (Nasa, Nato) and all caps for initialisms (ATM, SNP). I did try to search for SQL to see if the Beeb thinks it should be read as Sequel or Es-que-el, but their search refuse to show exact results and keeps giving me articles about the Scottish National Party instead.
  - johneth 2mo ago
    From their style guide: "Where you would normally pronounce the abbreviation as a string of letters - an initialism - use all capitals with no full stops or spaces (eg FA, UNHCR). However, our style is to use lower case with an initial cap for acronyms where you would normally pronounce the set of letters as a word (eg Maga, Sars, Aids, Nasa, Opec, Apec)." (Under "acronym": https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/a https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/a )
notahacker 2mo ago
CONCACAF and UEFA together is 96 out of 211 votes. They've since being joined by the Asian Football Confederation for a large majority against. And no reason to suspect the bung Infantino offers for voting in his direction is anywhere near enough to sway CONMEBOL. The African confederation is actually marginally smaller than the European one. It also has no shortage of internal disagreements, brings in very little revenue, and the bigger nations are ultimately going to look at where the money is and see that it isn't trying to plough ahead without Europe, Asia or the United States. CONCACAF was actually one of Infantino's best hopes, a mixture of the US, a few nations that hugely benefited from Infantino's other world cup reforms and a few that have no realistic prospect of World Cup football but would love $40m in return for voting a particular way...

mikkom 2mo ago

Yeah but good luck having World Cup without any european country...

nephihaha 2mo ago
Yes, it's just been won by one! For me one of the gaping holes in this tournament was Italy. That would have been unthinkable years ago. It is strange seeing New Zealand there but not Russia, but there are political reasons for that.

illliillll 2mo ago

FIFA can't really exist in any way similar to it's current form without UEFA > You're excluding about half of the planet by only mentioning Africa. It's the half of the planet that nobody cares about when it comes to football.

Departed7405 2mo ago
The issue is every federation - whether they never qualified for the world cup or won final(s) - gets one vote. This has become a big issue, with any proposal to give more money (even if that entails compromising on key principles) to federations (by making more money) is almost certain to pass because of very poor FAs that need it / want it desperately.
- wongarsu 2mo ago
  Yeah, but if UEFA stays true to their word, passing this proposal is guaranteed to lead to the end of a FIFA-led world cup. They have the votes to privatize the world cup, but in doing so would destroy the very thing they are trying to privatize, and likely destroy FIFA as a whole Meanwhile UEFA can just get together with South America and form a new governing body for a new world cup

ganzsz 2mo ago

Nobody is going to watch a worldcup if south America joins this boycott.

dwedge 2mo ago
Wondering about this. 10 years ago it was true but Brazil are a shadow of their former selves, and Argentina without the likes of Messi and Aguero aren't the same. I know they reached the final but Messi almost had the golden boot. Wouldn't be surprised to see Africa surpass South America in the next decade

Hamuko 2mo ago

UEFA leaving already leaves a pretty big gaping hole in any future FIFA tournament, since it'd exclude Spain (1st), England (3rd), France (4th), Norway (5th), Belgium (6th), Switzerland (joint 7th), Portugal (13th), Netherlands (17th), Germany (18th), Croatia (20th), Sweden (27th), Austria (28th), Bosnia and Herzegovina (29th). That's 75% of the final four and of the quarterfinals, 44% of the round of 16. Then if you add CONCACAF into the mix, it comes to 63% of the RO16.

nephihaha 2mo ago
Having Scotland back in the tournament was great, and the Tartan Army generated a lot of positive press, and was relatively well behaved.

zimpenfish 2mo ago

Since AFC have now joined them[0][1], FIFA no longer have the votes for this to pass. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/ce345l6kg6ro https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/ce345l6kg6ro - "Uefa - the body that governs European football - has 55 votes. Concacaf, which oversees football in North, Central America and the Caribbean, has 35 and Asia has 46." which only leaves 75 votes from the 211 and he'd need 106. [1] I've no idea why the BBC doesn't properly capitalise UEFA or CONCACAF. I assume it's either some weird style guide or the subeditors are having another day off.

mediumdeviation 2mo ago
On the capitalization, it seems the BBC will always use title case for acronyms (Nasa, Nato) and all caps for initialisms (ATM, SNP). I did try to search for SQL to see if the Beeb thinks it should be read as Sequel or Es-que-el, but their search refuse to show exact results and keeps giving me articles about the Scottish National Party instead.
- johneth 2mo ago
  From their style guide: "Where you would normally pronounce the abbreviation as a string of letters - an initialism - use all capitals with no full stops or spaces (eg FA, UNHCR). However, our style is to use lower case with an initial cap for acronyms where you would normally pronounce the set of letters as a word (eg Maga, Sars, Aids, Nasa, Opec, Apec)." (Under "acronym": https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/a https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/a )

notahacker 2mo ago

CONCACAF and UEFA together is 96 out of 211 votes. They've since being joined by the Asian Football Confederation for a large majority against. And no reason to suspect the bung Infantino offers for voting in his direction is anywhere near enough to sway CONMEBOL. The African confederation is actually marginally smaller than the European one. It also has no shortage of internal disagreements, brings in very little revenue, and the bigger nations are ultimately going to look at where the money is and see that it isn't trying to plough ahead without Europe, Asia or the United States. CONCACAF was actually one of Infantino's best hopes, a mixture of the US, a few nations that hugely benefited from Infantino's other world cup reforms and a few that have no realistic prospect of World Cup football but would love $40m in return for voting a particular way...