Is anyone surprised to read this?

[moley]

According to the BBC most of the African and Caribean nations luv Blatter because he actually delivers on his promises and developing nations get "Micro-economic aid" in the form of  football grounds and stadia and don't get burdened with unserviceable debt.

South Africa 2010

In 2010, FIFA and its president, Sepp Blatter hailed the 2010 World Cup in South Africa to be a huge financial success for everyone. But this is only partly true. FIFA made over three and a half billion dollars from TV and other World Cup-related rights. South Africa and its taxpayers however, had to shoulder all of the costs (estimated to be 4.1 billion dollars) to modernize and construct the stadiums, hotels, roads, and other forms of local infrastructure necessary to host a global party. All this construction generated over 22,000 jobs, but they were all temporary contract job.

The new infrastructure is beneficial to locals, but after the World Cup, all the extra hotels and stadiums are sitting idle, as South Africa has not been able to generate or maintain the level of tourism that it experienced during the tournament. The construction of these state-of-the-art stadiums is not sustainable, as ticket revenues alone were not able to make up for the costs of yearly maintenance. These costs are falling on local, potentially cash-strapped municipalities that don’t need a state-of-the-art stadium.

[Clunkclick]

And Fifa doesn't require host countries to make legislative changes to suit Fifa and sponsors?

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

Minor in comparison with what the World Bank does to them.

 

Nick

[Clunkclick]

 

South Africa 2010

In 2010, FIFA and its president, Sepp Blatter hailed the 2010 World Cup in South Africa to be a huge financial success for everyone. But this is only partly true. FIFA made over three and a half billion dollars from TV and other World Cup-related rights. South Africa and its taxpayers however, had to shoulder all of the costs (estimated to be 4.1 billion dollars) to modernize and construct the stadiums, hotels, roads, and other forms of local infrastructure necessary to host a global party. All this construction generated over 22,000 jobs, but they were all temporary contract job.

The new infrastructure is beneficial to locals, but after the World Cup, all the extra hotels and stadiums are sitting idle, as South Africa has not been able to generate or maintain the level of tourism that it experienced during the tournament. The construction of these state-of-the-art stadiums is not sustainable, as ticket revenues alone were not able to make up for the costs of yearly maintenance. These costs are falling on local, potentially cash-strapped municipalities that don’t need a state-of-the-art stadium.

 

Hang on, FIFA made 3.5 billion dollars, they are skimming off the top, so the overall economic boost to the South African economy over say a 12 month period must have been a multiple of 3.5 billion dollars. No ?

 

Nick

[moley]

Hang on, FIFA made 3.5 billion dollars, they are skimming off the top, so the overall economic boost to the South African economy over say a 12 month period must have been a multiple of 3.5 billion dollars. No ?

 

Nick

Err, No.

You pay to bid, You pay to host, you pay to build, you hope sponsorship covers your costs. Fifa take no risks and make a big profit.

In 2022 one of the worlds most well known footballing country will host the world cup, so that proves there is no corruption in Fifa.  :think:

[trundlenut]

Minor in comparison with what the World Bank does to them.

Nick

And that makes it Ok?

Go and do some reading on what's been happening in Brazil.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

[gadgetman]

Really wish I'd put a bet on Blatter getting re-elected at those long odds

[Clunkclick]

And that makes it Ok?

Go and do some reading on what's been happening in Brazil.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

Will do.

 

Nick

[Clunkclick]

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/may/29/brazil-corruption-fifa-arrests-romario

 

Clearly some naughty business being going on there for some time, but in today's World-Wide "Business" context, its small potatoes compared with the engineered World financial collapse of 2008, the fixing the Libor rate or Nick Leeson's  activity for that merchant bank 25 years ago, ENRON, Olympus, the Pharma companies worldwide,  Equity Life pensioners trials and tribulations . . and on and on, including the one's that the UK financial establishment doesn't want made public yet.

 

Oddly, less noise was initially generated by objectors when the American inspired Perestoika  and inflow of funds "Liberalised"  the ex- Soviet Union and turned it into a land of warring, murdering, super rich oligarchs.

 

South America is where the next big economic growth spurt is occurring - huge amounts of money from European enterprises and banks has been invested, particularly in Brazil. Any wonder that FIFA (Which probably is, in effect,  an arm of the European banking system) would want to get on board. Let's not be niave.

 

But oh dear, all this European investment is occurring in South America, an area traditionally regarded by some of the residents of the northern part of co-joined continent, as their back-yard politically and economically.

 

But at the time the European investment started, the USA wasn't South America's "Best friend". As I recall, about 10-15 years ago, the financial services of the USA, under George Ws administration's watchful gaze, were buying-up all the public infra- structure they could on the southern continent and putting it on a "Commercial" basis i.e. closing most of it down.  This had severe deflationary effect on a number of economies in South America. Some here may recall the media reports concerning the dire economic straits that regions of Argentina had been put in. So any wonder the prospect of lots of European money looked attractive. Its interesting to note, that with the change of administration in the USA, came a change of policy (Or oerhaps, there was just no more infrastructure to buy-up ?) and now Mr O is the Argentinian Lady president's best chum.

 

Its all very well getting on your high-horse and saying its all wrong - especially from our standpoint as the inheritors of the proceeds of the British Empire . . . .  whose proceeds, as we all well know, were all obtained fully legitamely ( Hell, I,ve seen the deeds and contracts, not). But its human nature World-wide and a feature of developing economies that rules will be bent to satisfy the needs of those with a pathological desire to acquire wealth and that the mass of the population will benefit by "Trickle down" but only a good deal of time later - the hyper competitive houses of the Venetian merchants and their desire to be "One-up" on each other, being the classic case in point. - it resulted in glazed windows ( And K glass  ) for the rest of us - some time later !

 

Its only when the economies have "Developed" that things settle down economically and politically and the people that had a pathological desire to obtain wealth have got more than they know what to do with that the high moral tones start emerging about the activities and behaviour of the next up-coming generation who are now embarking on the same trail they did many tens of years previously.

 

In this case, I think there's a large element of  sour grapes by the USA.

 

 

Nick

Edited 30 May, 2015 by Clunkclick

[trundlenut]

You are allowed more than one axe you know.

On that basis you could say there there is no point in doing anything about non violent crime as it is obviously less important.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

[Clunkclick]

You are allowed more than one axe you know.

On that basis you could say there there is no point in doing anything about non violent crime as it is obviously less important.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

Obviously FIFA needs sorting out, but so does UEFA - they are the ones that have given the green light to Premiership pay scales across Europe.

 

Are some of these individuals really worth £300,000 a week and £100 million transfer fees ? That's a distorted and perhaps a corrupted economy, if ever there was one, but, of course, you don't hear too much about that (Because, like Venetian merchants, modern football supporters actually relish paying out £10,000 per annum for season tickets ?), its very existence effectively silences criticism "From below"  of the salaries, bonuses and handshakes in the financial institutions of the European financial centres. And you could ask, how many all weather pitches for under priveliged Africans has Wayne, or come to that any of the other highly paid European premiership royalty,   paid for out of their sizeable weekly retainers. Lets guess ?

 

Clearly, FIFA has a "Democratic deficit", in that few other respected "Democractic" bodies have a constitution that allows the same bod to be re-elected four times in-a-row after the initial term.  

 

I think some of the European press coverage is disingenuous in this respect - but, again, its a wonderful press gravy train, that provides the powers-that-be with a wonderful distraction for the masses which stops them bleating on about the sub- European wages / T's & C's, productivity, housing, education and health service in this country.

 

 

Postscript

 

With all that offshore oil, I'd be the Argentinian Lady President's best friend.

 

Nick

Edited 30 May, 2015 by Clunkclick

[gadgetman]

Football finances are unsustainable. Almost every major club as decades of debt.

Sponsors tightening their belts could cripple the whole sport. Other sports are losing sponsor at quite a rate as it is.

[ChrisRs]

Well...Hes gone!!

At least when another President is elected

Here is the article:

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/fifa-president-sepp-blatter-to-resign/ar-BBkADIW?ocid=MSIDHP

 

Thread here too:

http://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/357734-blatter-has-resigned/

[Brimma]