NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, in lieu of the wonderful opinion (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmoral/articles/20060615.aspx) found on Strategy Page a while back and treated in a thread or two, I'd like to ask whether FIFA is pro-American. Why? Well...

The world cup being in Germany and all, there are quite a number of shows after the games that capitalize on what happened there. One of them is run by a Bavarian named Waldemar Hartmann, and is called "Waldis WM Club" (Waldi's WC Club). Being Bavarian, him and the people he invites to the place he does his show tend to drink beer. FIFA demanded from them that they drink Bud on television, as they are associated with the World Cup and Bud happens to be a sponsor of FIFA.
(Waldi's answer to that was: "Before we drink American industrial beer on television, we'd rather drink water.")

EDIT: It may not be entirely clear, but I am indeed aware that FIFA is more "greedy" than it is "pro-" or "anti-" anything.

FIFA is, for the moment, pro-Budweiser, simply because it's a corporate sponsor and has an obligation to be. It is not pro-American, no more than it is pro-Martian.

It's not pro-American - it's pro-sponsor. It doesn't care about the nationality of its sponsors, but it does care that the companies might take legal action if someone or something (such as a tv show) is seen to be promoting an alternative.

Any European beer is highly more superior than any american beer.

Even Tennants !!!!!

therefore they have every right to protest under such demands.

FIFA isn't the Eurovision song contest.

It's not pro-American - it's pro-sponsor. It doesn't care about the nationality of its sponsors, but it does care that the companies might take legal action if someone or something (such as a tv show) is seen to be promoting an alternative.
They care more about the money from the sponsors. Just so happens that some of them with the most money are American.

On some other forums I go to, the question people have been asking is whether or not FIFA is anti-American.

FIFA isn't the Eurovision song contest.
Very few things are...

Any European beer is highly more superior than any american beer.
*snip*

I agree, except that the word "beer" after the word "European" should be replaced by the word "dishwater".

Drink Duff! :)

I agree, except that the word "beer" after the word "European" should be replaced by the word "dishwater".
And the word "beer" after "American" should be replaced with "shitwater."

Well they're not anti-American. They held the tournement in America in 94 didnt they? Or doesnt that count any more? Like people have said, FIFA are pro-sponsor, Germans are, by and large, anti-crappy beer.

(or it may have been 98, I'm not sure. I was never that keen on football)

Well, in lieu of the wonderful opinion (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmoral/articles/20060615.aspx) found on Strategy Page a while back and treated in a thread or two, I'd like to ask whether FIFA is pro-American. Why? Well...

The world cup being in Germany and all, there are quite a number of shows after the games that capitalize on what happened there. One of them is run by a Bavarian named Waldemar Hartmann, and is called "Waldis WM Club" (Waldi's WC Club). Being Bavarian, him and the people he invites to the place he does his show tend to drink beer. FIFA demanded from them that they drink Bud on television, as they are associated with the World Cup and Bud happens to be a sponsor of FIFA.
(Waldi's answer to that was: "Before we drink American industrial beer on television, we'd rather drink water.")

EDIT: It may not be entirely clear, but I am indeed aware that FIFA is more "greedy" than it is "pro-" or "anti-" anything.
Beer sponsorship was one of the problems with New Zealand co-hosting the '03 Rugby World Cup so what if it potenitally cost us 200 million dollars.:p
The other reason was Corporate box holders didn't want to give up the box's that they had paid for and so we didn't host.
Also the '03 Cricket World Cup in Sud Afrika was Pro-Pepsi anyone drinking Coca Cola was asked to had over there drink or leave.

Fifa is pro-Brazil.

FIFA is, for the moment, pro-Budweiser, simply because it's a corporate sponsor and has an obligation to be...
Exactly, even the Dukes of Hazard know that. I am very, very sorry to make that reference.

Despite whatever claims may be made, FIFA can be accused of being anti-American ( or just greedy little buggers ) based on the link present in the OP. FIFA can also be accused of being pro-American for keeping a sponser from pursuing legal action against them.
FIFA isn't the Eurovision song contest.
Exactly. Team Finland didn't come out of no-where and hasn't been cutting a bloody swath on the football field.

FIFA are really corrupt so anyone with lots of money gets treated well.

FIFA is pro-garlic breathing, backwaxing unibrows (originally) from the mediterranean. I.e. Italy, Portugal, Argentina and their mother ho, Brazil. Can't wait for the European Cup...:headbang:

Well they're not anti-American. They held the tournement in America in 94 didnt they? Or doesnt that count any more? Like people have said, FIFA are pro-sponsor, Germans are, by and large, anti-crappy beer.

(or it may have been 98, I'm not sure. I was never that keen on football)

1994, you were right in the first place...

They're pro-American cause it's worth their while to be pro-Am.
Look at some of their biggest sponsors:
Budweiser
Coca Cola
McDonalds
Mastercard
Adidas
Gilette
Phillips
FujiFilm

Now ask yourself: Where is the main HQ of these companies and where is the biggest market for them?

Hence FIFA's proAm stance. Of course to keep these sponsors happy, the US needs to be at the WC.

Look at the qualifying zone the US is in: The easiest 1 out of the 6.

Look at who's in that zone:
USA
Panama
Jamaica
El Salvador
Costa Rica
Guatemala
Honduras
Canada
Mexico
Trinidad and Tobago
St. Vincent / Grenadines
St. Kitts and Nevis

Some major football nations there. (St. Kitts and Nevis in 6 games failed to score and let in 24 goals!)
With has 3.5 spots available for the 12 teams competiting, it all but guarantees the US qualification for the WC.

The fact that the US is ranked 5th in the World is also a joke. It's based mainly on the number of games they played in qualifying (22), but when against football lightweights like those above, should they really count?

5th in the World, and how many games have they won at the WC since 1990?
1990: 3 losses (2 goals for, 8 against)
1994: 1 win, 1 draw, 1 loss (3 for, 3 against)
1998: 3 losses (1 for, 5 against)
2002: 2 wins, 2 draws, 1 loss (7 for, 7 against) <--only time they did well, getting to the quarter finals
2006: 1 draw, 2 losses (2 for, 6 against)
Total: 17 games played: 3 wins, 4 draws, 10 losses (15 goals for, 29 against)

This from the "5th" best team in the World...:rolleyes:



Compare that to Australia - supposedly ranked 42nd.
Oceania has 0.5 spots. Not enough money in Oceania for FIFA to give a damn I guess.
To get to the WC, a team from that zone has to not only come top of Oceania, but then has to play (and beat) the 5th best team in South America twice.

Where's the logic in Oz having to go to S.Am to play, while a N.Am country goes to Asia to play?
None, except it does give the US a better chance if they don't get into the top 3.
(While I'm on about it: Where's the logic of giving 4.5 berths to both Asia and S.Am? It's not like there's the same quality of play between the two)

The 3.5 spots for N.Am means that the 4th best team plays the 5th best team from Asia for that spot. If you know anything about Asian football, you'll know the 5th best team in Asia ain't worth squat.
To put the quality of the Asian (which has 4.5 berths) football countries into perspective, Saudi Arabia played 12 games to qualify top. Out of those 12 games it scored 24 goals for and had 2 goals against.
In the last WC (2002), it had 0 goals for and 11 goals against in 3 games (including a 8:0 drubbing by Germany)
This time round they managed 2 goals for, 7 against in their 3 games.
Out of their last three appearances at the WC, S.Arabia has the embarassing record of:
1 draw, 8 losses 4 goals for, 25 against(:eek: )

This is one of the best teams in Asia!


Yet FIFA is happy with this team qualifying each time. Compare that to FIFA's attitude towards Oceania.
In 2003 NZ (surprisingly) beat Oz to qualify for the Confederations Cup. Unsurprisingly, they were dicked over, losing all 3 games (3-1, 3-0 and 5-0, to the USA, Japan and France respectively).
FIFA's immediate reaction to this was to drop Oceania's automatic entry into the WC, saying that Oceania obviously isn't up to WC standard (yet Saudi Arabia is?!?).


FIFA corrupt? Definitely.
Pro-American? Definitely.
Pro-do anything to get money? Definitely.

-very severe snipping has occurred-
FIFA corrupt? Definitely.
Pro-American? Definitely.
Pro-do anything to get money? Definitely.
America's zone isn't the easiest of the six - that's the Oceania group. Australia and New Zealand are the only teams with any hope of qualifying from there, and Australia are actually miles better than NZ. The reason they don't get an automatic spot is because that would basically be giving Australia automatic qualification each time.

However, your point about guaranteeing America a place in the World Cup is a fair one. But FIFA has to distribute the qualifying spots evenly across the world taking into account the level of football in each continent. Europe gets fourteen spots because it has the best teams (six out of eight quarter finalists this time are European, and the last time there wasn't a European team in the World Cup final was in 1950 - only twice has there not been a European team in the final, compared to seven times for South American teams).

Even if N. America only had two spots (which I think is probably fair), America would probably still qualify every time. And maybe take 1.5 spots from Asia, and 1.5 spots from S. America (look how Paraguay (4th in the S. American qualifying) did). Assuming Oceania has one automatic spot, that leaves four more empty spots - where do they go? Africa already has 5, but Angola and Togo were clearly struggling. 18 European teams at the World Cup? There'd just be complaints of FIFA bias towards Europe.

Side note: The quality of play between S. America and Asia is surprisingly similar if you take Brazil and Argentina out of the equation. The best Asian teams (Japan and S. Korea) are probably as good as, if not better than, Ecuador and Paraguay.

Really don't want to go on about the ridiculousness of the FIFA rankings. Check out the Elo Ratings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Football_Elo_Ratings) for a more accurate ranking of national football teams. Yes, there's still some cause for complaint (England are 5th?!), but try finding America in the top 20.

Your conclusions are pretty much accurate, though.

FIFA is pro-garlic breathing, backwaxing unibrows (originally) from the mediterranean. I.e. Italy, Portugal, Argentina and their mother ho, Brazil. Can't wait for the European Cup...:headbang:If Germany manages to kick out Argentina and France beats Brazil, a Eurocup it will be :)

more brutal snipage

Side note: The quality of play between S. America and Asia is surprisingly similar if you take Brazil and Argentina out of the equation. The best Asian teams (Japan and S. Korea) are probably as good as, if not better than, Ecuador and Paraguay.

Really don't want to go on about the ridiculousness of the FIFA rankings. Check out the Elo Ratings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Football_Elo_Ratings) for a more accurate ranking of national football teams. Yes, there's still some cause for complaint (England are 5th?!), but try finding America in the top 20.

Your conclusions are pretty much accurate, though.
Cheers for the ELO rankings. I didn't know of those, and looking at their top 20, I have to say it's a damn sight more accurate reflection of team's places.
What's wrong with England being 5th?
Since 2004 they've played 19 games (not including the WC), won 14, drawn 2, lost 3. Aside from the drubbing Denmark gave them (4 - 1 in Aug 2005) and that shock N.Ireland loss, pretty good results really.


As for the quality of play between S.Am and Asia being similar, I think that's very debateable.
Look at Saudi Arabia. As I mentioned, in their WC 2006 qualifying they scored 24 goals and let in only 2. S.Arabia beat S.Korea twice in qualifying, which indicates they're a stronger side. On the face of it they're obviously way better than the other Asian teams.
Yet look how dreadful they are in the WC. I can't see any team in S.Am being that bad. Also makes one wonder as to the quality of the Asian teams that were so comprehensively beaten.

I can only assume FIFA is happy with so many places going to Asia (and IIRC aren't they talking of giving them another one, to help China qualify?) cause countries like S.Arabia give FIFA enough money to overlook their dreadful WC results.

btw, I got the info at this site:
WC qualifying criteria (http://www.mapsofworld.com/2006-fifa-world-cup/2006-football-worldcup-qualifying-criteria.html)

Fifa will have a slight American bias at the moment, simply because there is an untapped market of three hundred million people that they aim to fleece.

Fifa will have a slight American bias at the moment, simply because there is an untapped market of three hundred million people that they aim to fleece.

Most of whom care absolutely nothing about soccer and likely never will.

FIFA?

...

Oh, Soccer!


(we play that sport? I never knew....)




;)

Most of whom care absolutely nothing about soccer and likely never will.
Yes, I think that post #23 accurately sums up what most of these three hundred million think about soccer/football.

Forced to drink Bud? Why aren't they allowed to drink beer? Just put it in a Budweiser Water glass.

Zepp Blatter needs to go...the corrupt little fattie has more skeletons in his wardrobe than I have unwashed plates in my kitchen sink (I have a lot of those).

Most of whom care absolutely nothing about soccer and likely never will.

The keyword here being "likely". A chance, ANY chance, for profit will lure any company to it like shit attracts flies. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if the yanks will come to like football (unlike the yanks we can name our sports for what they are) more and more. Though with their current sucessrate it might still take a while.

As most already said: FIFA is not pro-anything but pro-money.
Sad thing it is that most rather good sports are being spoiled by those green/red/blue/yellow/whatever pieces of paper.
FIFA interferes at every international soccer-game and that just sucks hard.

America's zone isn't the easiest of the six - that's the Oceania group. Australia and New Zealand are the only teams with any hope of qualifying from there, and Australia are actually miles better than NZ. The reason they don't get an automatic spot is because that would basically be giving Australia automatic qualification each time.


Slightly off-topic, this, but just to correct a couple of misconceptions....

1) Australia no longer play in Oceania - they've jumped ship to Asia. Representing Oceania in this World Cup was their last obligation to their former confederation, and Australia have already begun qualification for the next Asian Cup of Nations with a victory over Bahrein. They're hosting Kuwait in Sydney next.

2) You possibly overrate New Zealand. Australia's opponent in the two-legged final of its last Oceanian championship, and its opponent in the final matches played to decide who had the right to represent Oceania against Uruguay was...... That powerhouse of international football, the mighty Solomon Islands, who pipped New Zealand to second in the Oceania qualification table.

However, note that even if Australia were still in Oceania, I'd still argue that CONCACAF is the easier qualification section for the simple reason that you can finish third in CONCACAF and still have an automatic qualification spot, whereas finishing first in Oceania only gets you a playoff against another confederation's best loser (most recently S. America).

Any European beer is highly more superior than any american beer.

Even Tennants !!!!!

therefore they have every right to protest under such demands.

FIFA isn't the Eurovision song contest.

LOL!

You picked the one beer I would have listed as not good at all. The Scots need to stick to Scotch.

That said, you haven't had good American beer. Samuel Adams and Anchor Steam both brew some pretty good beer. There are dozens of smaller American brewing companies that rank as the very best in the world.

America's zone isn't the easiest of the six - that's the Oceania group. Australia and New Zealand are the only teams with any hope of qualifying from there, and Australia are actually miles better than NZ. The reason they don't get an automatic spot is because that would basically be giving Australia automatic qualification each time.

However, your point about guaranteeing America a place in the World Cup is a fair one. But FIFA has to distribute the qualifying spots evenly across the world taking into account the level of football in each continent. Europe gets fourteen spots because it has the best teams (six out of eight quarter finalists this time are European, and the last time there wasn't a European team in the World Cup final was in 1950 - only twice has there not been a European team in the final, compared to seven times for South American teams).

Even if N. America only had two spots (which I think is probably fair), America would probably still qualify every time. And maybe take 1.5 spots from Asia, and 1.5 spots from S. America (look how Paraguay (4th in the S. American qualifying) did). Assuming Oceania has one automatic spot, that leaves four more empty spots - where do they go? Africa already has 5, but Angola and Togo were clearly struggling. 18 European teams at the World Cup? There'd just be complaints of FIFA bias towards Europe.

Side note: The quality of play between S. America and Asia is surprisingly similar if you take Brazil and Argentina out of the equation. The best Asian teams (Japan and S. Korea) are probably as good as, if not better than, Ecuador and Paraguay.

Really don't want to go on about the ridiculousness of the FIFA rankings. Check out the Elo Ratings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Football_Elo_Ratings) for a more accurate ranking of national football teams. Yes, there's still some cause for complaint (England are 5th?!), but try finding America in the top 20.

Your conclusions are pretty much accurate, though.
Excuse me what you, say Miles better?
Thats a load of hooey!
They only managed to beat us 1-0 last time we played them we've beaten them 2 out of the last 6 matches wev'e played against them and if the Confederations Cup and World Cup Qualifiers were'nt lumped into one 'tourny' the shock loss to Vanuatu wouldn't have been such a big deal.
14,000!

Cheers for the ELO rankings. I didn't know of those, and looking at their top 20, I have to say it's a damn sight more accurate reflection of team's places.
What's wrong with England being 5th?
Since 2004 they've played 19 games (not including the WC), won 14, drawn 2, lost 3. Aside from the drubbing Denmark gave them (4 - 1 in Aug 2005) and that shock N.Ireland loss, pretty good results really.
Maybe, but as far as I remember, we've only won six competitive matches against other countries in the ELO top 20 in the last six years (Germany - 2000, 2001; Argentina - 2002; Switzerland - 2004; Croatia - 2004), while at the same time losing six competitive matches (Romania - 2000; Portugal - 2000, 2004; Germany - 2000; Brazil - 2002; France - 2004). Not a brilliant record. In my personal world ranking I'd put England at about 8th or 9th.

As for the quality of play between S.Am and Asia being similar, I think that's very debateable.
Look at Saudi Arabia. As I mentioned, in their WC 2006 qualifying they scored 24 goals and let in only 2. S.Arabia beat S.Korea twice in qualifying, which indicates they're a stronger side. On the face of it they're obviously way better than the other Asian teams.
Yet look how dreadful they are in the WC. I can't see any team in S.Am being that bad. Also makes one wonder as to the quality of the Asian teams that were so comprehensively beaten.
Saudi Arabia are a bit like Ecuador - great at home (where the climate suits them), not so great away. For example, look at their wonderful 1-1 draw away to Uzbekistan in the final group stage. Uzbekistan only reached the final stage because they were in a group with Iraq, Palestine and Chinese Taipei in the previous round. They beat South Korea away in a match that meant nothing because both teams had already qualified - only three days after S. Korea had played North Korea in a friendly, while Saudi Arabia hadn't played for two months...

Maybe saying the standard of football between S. America and Asia was a bit generous to Asia, but Saudi Arabia could hold their own against the weaker S. American teams. Bearing in mind there are only ten countries competing in S. America, the worst teams there are on a par with the mediocre Asian teams.

If the WC was held in Saudi Arabia, I'd expect them to do fairly well (second round at least) - like South Korea and Japan did when they hosted the competition.

I can only assume FIFA is happy with so many places going to Asia (and IIRC aren't they talking of giving them another one, to help China qualify?) cause countries like S.Arabia give FIFA enough money to overlook their dreadful WC results.
That's probably true - there's very little money in football in Oceania and South America (outside Argentina and Brazil), so FIFA go where the money is. And you said in a previous post that FIFA are corrupt.

Fifa is Pro-Nazi

Fifa is Pro-Nazi
Don't be silly. That's the British monarchy.