Jack Warner paid millions by the Qatari firm: shock... or not

[LanguedocFox]

It shouldn't come as a surprise of course, but former Fifa vice-president Jack Warner and his family were paid millions by a Qatari firm after they got the World Cup (with his support). How many more? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/10704290/Qatar-World-Cup-2022-investigation-former-Fifa-vice-president-Jack-Warner-and-family-paid-millions.html.

 

Am I alone in thinking that England should decline to enter the 2022 World Cup?

[Dan]

I don't expect us to but I'd love to see us all boycott the 2022 World Cup. It's a corrupt and tarnished competition and Qatar are utter nobodies that shouldn't be even considered.

[indierich06]

We should withdraw on principal, but the FA literally has zero balls. Plus I reckon your average man in the street would have the hump if England didn't play in a major tournament.

 

The whole thing's disgusting IMO and if we take part then we're just letting them get away with it. Money is truly destroying this beautiful game.

[Mark_w]

We should boycott it because we're shit and this would be a good excuse.

[Freeman's Wharfer]

I think withdrawing would be a great statement to make. I personally wouldn't complain if they organised a home nations tournament that summer instead and let whoever else get on with what will undoubtedly be a farce in Qatar.

 

With the cost of Wembley, missing out on a qualifying campaign's worth of ticket money and corporate money through qualifying for the tournament will be the major influencing factor for the FA however. So we all know that we'll be there and facilitating the team's presence in any way possible...

[Dan]

Freeman's Wharfer is spot on but if one (Germany, for example) boycotted, others would follow suit. You're freeing up a competition with the likes of Germany & Italy - that would attract interest. Maybe even a six nations type of thing. I know it's not ideal but I'd take that over playing in this utter melting pot of corruption.

[Leicesterpool]

I don't think we'd be the only nation to withdraw. Won't be surprised if a rival tournament will be set up around that time at a different country. The home nations idea though is poor i'm afraid there's nothing in it for us, it would mean more to the Scots, North Irish, republic of irish and wales. They'd do anything to do one of over us!

[Corky]

And there was us thinking everyone would be desperate to take football and the World Cup to Qatar.

 

Massive shock.

[Captain...]

It would take a lot of balls from the FA to do that, but I would back it, get Spain, Germany, Italy, France and the Netherlands involved that would be a quality 6 nations and proper snub to FIFA. It has been a corrupt farce from start to finish, Russia getting it is bad enough, but Qatar, seriously, it is nonsense and everyone knows it.

 

Get a few more teams involved and there can be a league played over the qualification period and then a mini tournament played in the Summer.

[lgfualol]

I say we dont boycott, might be our biggest chance at winning the world cup with all the big names gone.

Might result in a few players dying, or being kidnapped though.

[Les-TA-Jon]

Qatar getting the world cup wasn't a problem per se, for me. Let's not forget that the "world" cup hasn't exactly been globally distributed, in a fair manner over the years. It's been to Africa once, in 2010, to asia once, to north america once, and never to the middle east, the rest of asia or to Australasia.

 

One of Fifa's objectives is to promote and spread football. So giving it to a middle eastern country for the first time is a good idea. My problem was that Qatar came out and said "oh yeah by the way, no booze and no gays please!"

 

It's at this point that Fifa should have said you know what? We don't actually condone homophobia or discrimination of any kind, Football is a global sport and the world cup is a global event, and if you want to host it you've got to come some way to our values and allow gays and booze. They should have used it as a bargaining chip, not only on principle but also as a means of persuading Qatar to embrace more liberal ideas.

 

But they probably came up with some sort of BS like "oh we wouldn't want to politicise it all" or "but they're bribing us!" 

[notnow john]

There is more likely to be a boycott of Russia's 2018 tournament!

But it won't have anything to do with fifa's rancid regime.

[LanguedocFox]

Qatar getting the world cup wasn't a problem per se, for me. Let's not forget that the "world" cup hasn't exactly been globally distributed, in a fair manner over the years. It's been to Africa once, in 2010, to asia once, to north america once, and never to the middle east, the rest of asia or to Australasia.

 

One of Fifa's objectives is to promote and spread football. So giving it to a middle eastern country for the first time is a good idea. My problem was that Qatar came out and said "oh yeah by the way, no booze and no gays please!"

 

It's at this point that Fifa should have said you know what? We don't actually condone homophobia or discrimination of any kind, Football is a global sport and the world cup is a global event, and if you want to host it you've got to come some way to our values and allow gays and booze. They should have used it as a bargaining chip, not only on principle but also as a means of persuading Qatar to embrace more liberal ideas.

 

But they probably came up with some sort of BS like "oh we wouldn't want to politicise it all" or "but they're bribing us!" 

 

They won't do anything about either their homophobia or anti-alcohol attitude because both of those are entrenched in their religion. You might as well ask them to turn down the heat to something footballers can play in without endangering their health.

 

Giving the World Cup to Qatar was stupid and irresponsible, and was only ever going to happen as the result of corruption.

[Trav Le Bleu]

The corruption will only truly become evident when penalties at the end of a drawn match is replaced by camel racing.

[Captain...]

Qatar getting the world cup wasn't a problem per se, for me. Let's not forget that the "world" cup hasn't exactly been globally distributed, in a fair manner over the years. It's been to Africa once, in 2010, to asia once, to north america once, and never to the middle east, the rest of asia or to Australasia.

 

One of Fifa's objectives is to promote and spread football. So giving it to a middle eastern country for the first time is a good idea. My problem was that Qatar came out and said "oh yeah by the way, no booze and no gays please!"

 

It's at this point that Fifa should have said you know what? We don't actually condone homophobia or discrimination of any kind, Football is a global sport and the world cup is a global event, and if you want to host it you've got to come some way to our values and allow gays and booze. They should have used it as a bargaining chip, not only on principle but also as a means of persuading Qatar to embrace more liberal ideas.

 

But they probably came up with some sort of BS like "oh we wouldn't want to politicise it all" or "but they're bribing us!" 

 

I have no problem with it going to nations other than European and South American nations, and would have loved Australia to get it, despite the early morning matches, it is the fact that Qatar is not a footballing nation, has zero footballing pedigree and will be cheapening the World Cup by their very presence. Whichever second pot country gets the group with Qatar as the first seed will be laughing.

 

Add to that the searing heat/winter cup and how a country with a population of 2 million is going to handle 300,000 (South Africa) to 500,000 (predicted for Brazil) visitors at one time. One of the host cities has a population of 8,000 and one of the host cities doesn't actually exist yet, they are actually building a city for 250,000 people for the World Cup. They are building 9 new stadia and upgrading the existing 3. Logistically it is a mess, and a massive waste of money and resources when there are plenty of other countries with the stadia to host it tomorrow.

 

The fact that those visitors will be mainly wanting to drink, be made up of women and gays and probably won't respect the strict local cultures just adds to the fact it is a ludicrous decision.

 

If you are that desperate to take it to the Middle East Saudi Arabia would be a much better choice

[Footballwipe]

Qatar getting the world cup wasn't a problem per se, for me. Let's not forget that the "world" cup hasn't exactly been globally distributed, in a fair manner over the years. It's been to Africa once, in 2010, to asia once, to north america once, and never to the middle east, the rest of asia or to Australasia.

 

One of Fifa's objectives is to promote and spread football. So giving it to a middle eastern country for the first time is a good idea. My problem was that Qatar came out and said "oh yeah by the way, no booze and no gays please!"

 

It's at this point that Fifa should have said you know what? We don't actually condone homophobia or discrimination of any kind, Football is a global sport and the world cup is a global event, and if you want to host it you've got to come some way to our values and allow gays and booze. They should have used it as a bargaining chip, not only on principle but also as a means of persuading Qatar to embrace more liberal ideas.

 

But they probably came up with some sort of BS like "oh we wouldn't want to politicise it all" or "but they're bribing us!" 

 

Absolute rubbish about the first point.

 

The football World Cup is just like any sport world cup, it goes to the country who can host it and give it a lasting legacy. Look at rugby and cricket, a select few host the tournaments because they have the infrastructure and the ability to put the stadia to use after tournaments if they're being built from scratch. By your definition I'm expecting to see the Rugby World Cup pop up in Denmark or the Cricket World Cup in Italy because it hasn't been distributed globally? South Africa's hosting of a WC with millions of its population in terrible poverty was nothing more than a Sepp Blatter ego boost. This is the man who will be forever revered in Africa as the man who bought the WC there. Let's not also forget that Blatter changed the policy of bidding to ensure it got to Africa, with the 2010 competition only open to African nations. Same for 2014 with South America.

 

What legacy has he left? Oh yes several stadia that are white elephants and that's about it. FIFA get special tax exemptions remember when hosting the World Cup and make billions in TV rights and sponsorship, that all goes to them, the host nation pays £x million campaigning, £x billion building and preparing and only has the tourism and subsequent tourism to rely on as its money-maker from the competition.

 

Please don't kid yourself that the World Cup going to the middle east is a good thing. I've said before on this forum that FIFA World Cups should be limited to nations with the existing stadia and infrastructure to host such a tournament. USA, England, Spain, Italy, Australia, Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Portigal, France to start with. Countries sharing (Holland/Belgium etc) would also be an option. The power-houses, the big nations both geographically, politcally and international football-wise. A country that can host a World Cup tomorrow or in less than a year should get it. Yes the list is very slanted towards Europe but that's where the biggest leagues, the most suitable stadia and stable countries are located for the most part.

 

Qatar will be a shambles of a tournament. Taking place in several stadia that will never see capacity again, and with most of that capacity filled with the elite, not real football fans. It will be sterile and terrible and probably the peak of what is awful about "modern football." This is the pinnacle of world sport to most. No international competition comes close to it, and I include the Olympics. It should be hosted in nations who can handle such an occasion, who can handle the influx of fans.

 

I don't want to come over as insular and elitist about who can host a World Cup, but it really should be left to nations that have the ability to. Brazil have had seven years to organise a World Cup and they're doing their best to mess it up. Seven years. Now with Brazil's history they should've done a lot more in terms of their public transport and arenas by now and then I'd happily include them on the list.

 

Savour the 2014 World Cup, because that's the last one most will enjoy until 2026 (depending on who Platini gives it to when he's FIFA president, probably 10 stadiums around the world or whoever pays him the most.) Russia will be rife with their laws and racism issues and Qatar the same as well as being soulless and an abomination of a tournament. 2018 will be a shame because Russia is a huge country and in theory should be on that list, but their attitudes are so repugnant they force themselves off in my opinion,

 

It's sickening that FIFA can just sit there in front of the world and say everything is going okay and being investigated. It's sickening that no-one can do anything about it, or no-one is willing to DO anything about it. I would love the top 20 nations to say they're out and forming their own breakaway a la the Premier League but I doubt anyone would have the balls to do it. It's sad that a country can buy the right to host a World Cup, no matter how small or how little infrastructure they have in place.

 

If anything ruins international football it will be FIFA, not overpaid players and ever controlling clubs. It's a place for middle-aged/old men to line their pockets, dictate the rules to everyone and watch the money roll in. The organisation that controls the most popular sport in the world has absolutely no scrutiny at all, not an ounce. It can absorb the criticism, sacrifice a few men but continue its corrupt ways while whistling away calmly. The only way to reform FIFA is to elect a radical, and with the next FIFA president for the next 20 years certain to be Platini, that won't be happening any time soon.

 

FIFA is a lost cause, and so will the 2022 World Cup.

[Kitchandro]

Warner is a patsy. They were all up to it, not for one moment do I believe Blatter, Platini and their mates weren't up to the same thing. But they had a motive to drop Warner in the shit I seem to remember, and he was forced to resign. Didn't he oppose Blatter in the FIFA election?

 

I would love them to all start snitching on each other.

[Kitchandro]

Absolute rubbish about the first point.

 

The football World Cup is just like any sport world cup, it goes to the country who can host it and give it a lasting legacy. Look at rugby and cricket, a select few host the tournaments because they have the infrastructure and the ability to put the stadia to use after tournaments if they're being built from scratch. By your definition I'm expecting to see the Rugby World Cup pop up in Denmark or the Cricket World Cup in Italy because it hasn't been distributed globally? South Africa's hosting of a WC with millions of its population in terrible poverty was nothing more than a Sepp Blatter ego boost. This is the man who will be forever revered in Africa as the man who bought the WC there. Let's not also forget that Blatter changed the policy of bidding to ensure it got to Africa, with the 2010 competition only open to African nations. Same for 2014 with South America.

 

What legacy has he left? Oh yes several stadia that are white elephants and that's about it. FIFA get special tax exemptions remember when hosting the World Cup and make billions in TV rights and sponsorship, that all goes to them, the host nation pays £x million campaigning, £x billion building and preparing and only has the tourism and subsequent tourism to rely on as its money-maker from the competition.

 

Please don't kid yourself that the World Cup going to the middle east is a good thing. I've said before on this forum that FIFA World Cups should be limited to nations with the existing stadia and infrastructure to host such a tournament. USA, England, Spain, Italy, Australia, Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Portigal, France to start with. Countries sharing (Holland/Belgium etc) would also be an option. The power-houses, the big nations both geographically, politcally and international football-wise. A country that can host a World Cup tomorrow or in less than a year should get it. Yes the list is very slanted towards Europe but that's where the biggest leagues, the most suitable stadia and stable countries are located for the most part.

 

Qatar will be a shambles of a tournament. Taking place in several stadia that will never see capacity again, and with most of that capacity filled with the elite, not real football fans. It will be sterile and terrible and probably the peak of what is awful about "modern football." This is the pinnacle of world sport to most. No international competition comes close to it, and I include the Olympics. It should be hosted in nations who can handle such an occasion, who can handle the influx of fans.

 

I don't want to come over as insular and elitist about who can host a World Cup, but it really should be left to nations that have the ability to. Brazil have had seven years to organise a World Cup and they're doing their best to mess it up. Seven years. Now with Brazil's history they should've done a lot more in terms of their public transport and arenas by now and then I'd happily include them on the list.

 

Savour the 2014 World Cup, because that's the last one most will enjoy until 2026 (depending on who Platini gives it to when he's FIFA president, probably 10 stadiums around the world or whoever pays him the most.) Russia will be rife with their laws and racism issues and Qatar the same as well as being soulless and an abomination of a tournament. 2018 will be a shame because Russia is a huge country and in theory should be on that list, but their attitudes are so repugnant they force themselves off in my opinion,

 

It's sickening that FIFA can just sit there in front of the world and say everything is going okay and being investigated. It's sickening that no-one can do anything about it, or no-one is willing to DO anything about it. I would love the top 20 nations to say they're out and forming their own breakaway a la the Premier League but I doubt anyone would have the balls to do it. It's sad that a country can buy the right to host a World Cup, no matter how small or how little infrastructure they have in place.

 

If anything ruins international football it will be FIFA, not overpaid players and ever controlling clubs. It's a place for middle-aged/old men to line their pockets, dictate the rules to everyone and watch the money roll in. The organisation that controls the most popular sport in the world has absolutely no scrutiny at all, not an ounce. It can absorb the criticism, sacrifice a few men but continue its corrupt ways while whistling away calmly. The only way to reform FIFA is to elect a radical, and with the next FIFA president for the next 20 years certain to be Platini, that won't be happening any time soon.

 

FIFA is a lost cause, and so will the 2022 World Cup.

 

Top post.

[Dan]

Absolute rubbish about the first point.

 

The football World Cup is just like any sport world cup, it goes to the country who can host it and give it a lasting legacy. Look at rugby and cricket, a select few host the tournaments because they have the infrastructure and the ability to put the stadia to use after tournaments if they're being built from scratch. By your definition I'm expecting to see the Rugby World Cup pop up in Denmark or the Cricket World Cup in Italy because it hasn't been distributed globally? South Africa's hosting of a WC with millions of its population in terrible poverty was nothing more than a Sepp Blatter ego boost. This is the man who will be forever revered in Africa as the man who bought the WC there. Let's not also forget that Blatter changed the policy of bidding to ensure it got to Africa, with the 2010 competition only open to African nations. Same for 2014 with South America.

 

What legacy has he left? Oh yes several stadia that are white elephants and that's about it. FIFA get special tax exemptions remember when hosting the World Cup and make billions in TV rights and sponsorship, that all goes to them, the host nation pays £x million campaigning, £x billion building and preparing and only has the tourism and subsequent tourism to rely on as its money-maker from the competition.

 

Please don't kid yourself that the World Cup going to the middle east is a good thing. I've said before on this forum that FIFA World Cups should be limited to nations with the existing stadia and infrastructure to host such a tournament. USA, England, Spain, Italy, Australia, Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Portigal, France to start with. Countries sharing (Holland/Belgium etc) would also be an option. The power-houses, the big nations both geographically, politcally and international football-wise. A country that can host a World Cup tomorrow or in less than a year should get it. Yes the list is very slanted towards Europe but that's where the biggest leagues, the most suitable stadia and stable countries are located for the most part.

 

Qatar will be a shambles of a tournament. Taking place in several stadia that will never see capacity again, and with most of that capacity filled with the elite, not real football fans. It will be sterile and terrible and probably the peak of what is awful about "modern football." This is the pinnacle of world sport to most. No international competition comes close to it, and I include the Olympics. It should be hosted in nations who can handle such an occasion, who can handle the influx of fans.

 

I don't want to come over as insular and elitist about who can host a World Cup, but it really should be left to nations that have the ability to. Brazil have had seven years to organise a World Cup and they're doing their best to mess it up. Seven years. Now with Brazil's history they should've done a lot more in terms of their public transport and arenas by now and then I'd happily include them on the list.

 

Savour the 2014 World Cup, because that's the last one most will enjoy until 2026 (depending on who Platini gives it to when he's FIFA president, probably 10 stadiums around the world or whoever pays him the most.) Russia will be rife with their laws and racism issues and Qatar the same as well as being soulless and an abomination of a tournament. 2018 will be a shame because Russia is a huge country and in theory should be on that list, but their attitudes are so repugnant they force themselves off in my opinion,

 

It's sickening that FIFA can just sit there in front of the world and say everything is going okay and being investigated. It's sickening that no-one can do anything about it, or no-one is willing to DO anything about it. I would love the top 20 nations to say they're out and forming their own breakaway a la the Premier League but I doubt anyone would have the balls to do it. It's sad that a country can buy the right to host a World Cup, no matter how small or how little infrastructure they have in place.

 

If anything ruins international football it will be FIFA, not overpaid players and ever controlling clubs. It's a place for middle-aged/old men to line their pockets, dictate the rules to everyone and watch the money roll in. The organisation that controls the most popular sport in the world has absolutely no scrutiny at all, not an ounce. It can absorb the criticism, sacrifice a few men but continue its corrupt ways while whistling away calmly. The only way to reform FIFA is to elect a radical, and with the next FIFA president for the next 20 years certain to be Platini, that won't be happening any time soon.

 

FIFA is a lost cause, and so will the 2022 World Cup.

 

Amen to every word.

[Dan]

Warner is a patsy. They were all up to it, not for one moment do I believe Blatter, Platini and their mates weren't up to the same thing. But they had a motive to drop Warner in the shit I seem to remember, and he was forced to resign. Didn't he oppose Blatter in the FIFA election?

 

I would love them to all start snitching on each other.

 

I'd prefer they held a big meeting and the place was bombed personally but each to their own

[Guest MattP]

Super post that.

[westernpark]

We shouldn't be boycotting because of the money paid to Mr Warner, but for the 500 plus lives gone, in the building of the stadiums!

[Guest ttfn]

Absolute rubbish about the first point.

 

The football World Cup is just like any sport world cup, it goes to the country who can host it and give it a lasting legacy. Look at rugby and cricket, a select few host the tournaments because they have the infrastructure and the ability to put the stadia to use after tournaments if they're being built from scratch. By your definition I'm expecting to see the Rugby World Cup pop up in Denmark or the Cricket World Cup in Italy because it hasn't been distributed globally? South Africa's hosting of a WC with millions of its population in terrible poverty was nothing more than a Sepp Blatter ego boost. This is the man who will be forever revered in Africa as the man who bought the WC there. Let's not also forget that Blatter changed the policy of bidding to ensure it got to Africa, with the 2010 competition only open to African nations. Same for 2014 with South America.

 

What legacy has he left? Oh yes several stadia that are white elephants and that's about it. FIFA get special tax exemptions remember when hosting the World Cup and make billions in TV rights and sponsorship, that all goes to them, the host nation pays £x million campaigning, £x billion building and preparing and only has the tourism and subsequent tourism to rely on as its money-maker from the competition.

 

Please don't kid yourself that the World Cup going to the middle east is a good thing. I've said before on this forum that FIFA World Cups should be limited to nations with the existing stadia and infrastructure to host such a tournament. USA, England, Spain, Italy, Australia, Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Portigal, France to start with. Countries sharing (Holland/Belgium etc) would also be an option. The power-houses, the big nations both geographically, politcally and international football-wise. A country that can host a World Cup tomorrow or in less than a year should get it. Yes the list is very slanted towards Europe but that's where the biggest leagues, the most suitable stadia and stable countries are located for the most part.

 

Qatar will be a shambles of a tournament. Taking place in several stadia that will never see capacity again, and with most of that capacity filled with the elite, not real football fans. It will be sterile and terrible and probably the peak of what is awful about "modern football." This is the pinnacle of world sport to most. No international competition comes close to it, and I include the Olympics. It should be hosted in nations who can handle such an occasion, who can handle the influx of fans.

 

I don't want to come over as insular and elitist about who can host a World Cup, but it really should be left to nations that have the ability to. Brazil have had seven years to organise a World Cup and they're doing their best to mess it up. Seven years. Now with Brazil's history they should've done a lot more in terms of their public transport and arenas by now and then I'd happily include them on the list.

 

Savour the 2014 World Cup, because that's the last one most will enjoy until 2026 (depending on who Platini gives it to when he's FIFA president, probably 10 stadiums around the world or whoever pays him the most.) Russia will be rife with their laws and racism issues and Qatar the same as well as being soulless and an abomination of a tournament. 2018 will be a shame because Russia is a huge country and in theory should be on that list, but their attitudes are so repugnant they force themselves off in my opinion,

 

It's sickening that FIFA can just sit there in front of the world and say everything is going okay and being investigated. It's sickening that no-one can do anything about it, or no-one is willing to DO anything about it. I would love the top 20 nations to say they're out and forming their own breakaway a la the Premier League but I doubt anyone would have the balls to do it. It's sad that a country can buy the right to host a World Cup, no matter how small or how little infrastructure they have in place.

 

If anything ruins international football it will be FIFA, not overpaid players and ever controlling clubs. It's a place for middle-aged/old men to line their pockets, dictate the rules to everyone and watch the money roll in. The organisation that controls the most popular sport in the world has absolutely no scrutiny at all, not an ounce. It can absorb the criticism, sacrifice a few men but continue its corrupt ways while whistling away calmly. The only way to reform FIFA is to elect a radical, and with the next FIFA president for the next 20 years certain to be Platini, that won't be happening any time soon.

 

FIFA is a lost cause, and so will the 2022 World Cup.

I feel like standing up and applauding this.

 

Brilliant, brilliant post.

[Stadt]

I'll be glad when Blatter dies, another retard will take his place but still Blatter will be dead.

It's a bit extreme but I hate him, he's so blatantly corrupt.

[RonnieTodger]

Absolute rubbish about the first point.

 

The football World Cup is just like any sport world cup, it goes to the country who can host it and give it a lasting legacy. Look at rugby and cricket, a select few host the tournaments because they have the infrastructure and the ability to put the stadia to use after tournaments if they're being built from scratch. By your definition I'm expecting to see the Rugby World Cup pop up in Denmark or the Cricket World Cup in Italy because it hasn't been distributed globally? South Africa's hosting of a WC with millions of its population in terrible poverty was nothing more than a Sepp Blatter ego boost. This is the man who will be forever revered in Africa as the man who bought the WC there. Let's not also forget that Blatter changed the policy of bidding to ensure it got to Africa, with the 2010 competition only open to African nations. Same for 2014 with South America.

 

What legacy has he left? Oh yes several stadia that are white elephants and that's about it. FIFA get special tax exemptions remember when hosting the World Cup and make billions in TV rights and sponsorship, that all goes to them, the host nation pays £x million campaigning, £x billion building and preparing and only has the tourism and subsequent tourism to rely on as its money-maker from the competition.

 

Please don't kid yourself that the World Cup going to the middle east is a good thing. I've said before on this forum that FIFA World Cups should be limited to nations with the existing stadia and infrastructure to host such a tournament. USA, England, Spain, Italy, Australia, Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Portigal, France to start with. Countries sharing (Holland/Belgium etc) would also be an option. The power-houses, the big nations both geographically, politcally and international football-wise. A country that can host a World Cup tomorrow or in less than a year should get it. Yes the list is very slanted towards Europe but that's where the biggest leagues, the most suitable stadia and stable countries are located for the most part.

 

Qatar will be a shambles of a tournament. Taking place in several stadia that will never see capacity again, and with most of that capacity filled with the elite, not real football fans. It will be sterile and terrible and probably the peak of what is awful about "modern football." This is the pinnacle of world sport to most. No international competition comes close to it, and I include the Olympics. It should be hosted in nations who can handle such an occasion, who can handle the influx of fans.

 

I don't want to come over as insular and elitist about who can host a World Cup, but it really should be left to nations that have the ability to. Brazil have had seven years to organise a World Cup and they're doing their best to mess it up. Seven years. Now with Brazil's history they should've done a lot more in terms of their public transport and arenas by now and then I'd happily include them on the list.

 

Savour the 2014 World Cup, because that's the last one most will enjoy until 2026 (depending on who Platini gives it to when he's FIFA president, probably 10 stadiums around the world or whoever pays him the most.) Russia will be rife with their laws and racism issues and Qatar the same as well as being soulless and an abomination of a tournament. 2018 will be a shame because Russia is a huge country and in theory should be on that list, but their attitudes are so repugnant they force themselves off in my opinion,

 

It's sickening that FIFA can just sit there in front of the world and say everything is going okay and being investigated. It's sickening that no-one can do anything about it, or no-one is willing to DO anything about it. I would love the top 20 nations to say they're out and forming their own breakaway a la the Premier League but I doubt anyone would have the balls to do it. It's sad that a country can buy the right to host a World Cup, no matter how small or how little infrastructure they have in place.

 

If anything ruins international football it will be FIFA, not overpaid players and ever controlling clubs. It's a place for middle-aged/old men to line their pockets, dictate the rules to everyone and watch the money roll in. The organisation that controls the most popular sport in the world has absolutely no scrutiny at all, not an ounce. It can absorb the criticism, sacrifice a few men but continue its corrupt ways while whistling away calmly. The only way to reform FIFA is to elect a radical, and with the next FIFA president for the next 20 years certain to be Platini, that won't be happening any time soon.

 

FIFA is a lost cause, and so will the 2022 World Cup.

 

Fantastic post.

 

Obviously they never should have won the bid, but I've always thought ever since it was revealed that it was unlikely (certain) that they wouldn't host it in the summer; they're should have been a re-vote. They "won" it under a summer-time premise and wouldn't have stood a chance had the public known it would be held in the winter.

The cynic in me says that this was the plan all the long. "Oh shit, Qatar is really hot in the summer isn't it? Too bad it's already a done deal".