Of Falsehoods and Inaccuracies

When Jack Warner retired from FIFA he promised a tsunami of revelations that threatened to take down the institution where he made his living. Those of us who have a certain disdain for FIFA and MR. Warner had misgivings about that tsunami ever being unleashed, knowing that any waves could sink Warners ship—that is if he even cared about said ship.

On 29th December 2011 when Jack Warner told the world that he got CONCACAF world cup right for $1 quite the bombshell, nepotism at it worst. However the wave it created it passed without much comment. Not exactly the Tsunami we hoped for.

FIFA responded—2 weeks later—by branding Jack Warner a liar. You see Warner claimed those rights were given to him for the years 1998 – 2014, FIFA pointed out that this was totally inaccurate, false even.

Amazingly FIFA isn’t disputing that they gave their vice-president the rights to World Cup media for $1, not at all. They are actually saying it was even earlier than 1998 in fact it was 1986. That a FIFA member stood to personally benefit by controlling the media rights for 7 World Cup competitions is not a problem for FIFA. The problem in their eyes is that Warner insinuates that these rights were given to him in exchange for his support of Blatter.

So as an organization it entirely acceptable that one of your executives has personal control of the Caribbean, Central and North American media rights to your only money maker in exchange for $1.

FIFA’s reasoning is that “Such rights were ceded in order to provide an additional source of revenue for football development in the CFU (Caribbean Football Union),” Um how? How could it provide additional income if they have to buy the rights from their own president?

Continues after ad…

Wouldn’t it be better to cede those rights to the CFU instead of Jack Warner? What purpose does it serve to sell those rights to your vice president other than to fill his own pockets? FIFA has a very strange sense of integrity.

The CFU benefited so much from FIFA’s conscientiousness so much so, that they couldn’t even elect a new president and executive due to lack of funds.

…more inaccuracies

Vincent Kompany got sent off for a tackle that was both reckless and dangerous—being reckless is usually dangerous, I don’t see the need for both anyway—which sparked much debate around the footballosphere.

The Naysayers—that’s those saying nay to the card—argues that the tackle was not dangerous but maybe a bit reckless, in which case it deserves no more than a yellow. Whilst the yea-sayers argument is that going in two-footed in the air is an automatic Red-card.

Now normally I’d say lunging in with two feet in the air is worthy of a sending off. The question is whether it’s an automatic sending off.

First off all there is nothing in the rules to say that two feet off the ground is a sending off. I said “normally” in the preceding paragraph because most of the time when you go flying into that type of tackle it is usually under great pace which is unnecessary and excessive. Excessive being the operative word.

Whilst it can be argued that Kompany was reckless, and the tackle was dangerous, what is more difficult to argue is that in this case Kompany used “excessive force” and that is the difference between a caution and a sending off.

Comments are closed