US v Bosnia
- Thread starter socal lurker
- Start date
The Netflix documentary on FIFA was good
Two things I took away from it
1) The structure of the governance of football lends itself to being corrupt. No matter who works for them, they'll end up corrupt by design
2) The future is not one of financial corruption. It's one of political influence
It's therefore no surprise to see it play out this way. Like Capitalism, it has a destiny and there's nothing (not that we yet know of) to stop it in its tracks
If it wasn't Infantino, it would be someone else
Two things I took away from it
1) The structure of the governance of football lends itself to being corrupt. No matter who works for them, they'll end up corrupt by design
2) The future is not one of financial corruption. It's one of political influence
It's therefore no surprise to see it play out this way. Like Capitalism, it has a destiny and there's nothing (not that we yet know of) to stop it in its tracks
If it wasn't Infantino, it would be someone else
Belgium have gone even stronger with a second statement ...
Following its previous statement, the RBFA wishes to publicly explain the events of the past few hours.
After learning through media reports of Fifa’s decision to lift the automatic suspension of player Balogun, the RBFA sent a letter to Fifa requesting a copy of the decision, an explanation of the process that had been followed, and setting out its position regarding the applicable regulations.
As its only response, Fifa sent a letter to the RBFA stating that it considered this correspondence to constitute an appeal, that a judge had been appointed, and that the RBFA had only a few hours to complete that appeal. No information whatsoever was provided by Fifa.
For an appeal to be admissible, Fifa’s own regulations state that the reasoned decision must first have been communicated to the appellant. While the RBFA was merely seeking legitimate explanations, Fifa itself created an appeal and immediately ensured that it would be declared inadmissible.
All of this occurred while Fifa simultaneously refused to respond to the RBFA’s legitimate requests.
Furthermore, during the match coordination meeting, Fifa deliberately removed the section concerning the automatic suspension of players from its presentation.
This topic had nonetheless been part of all such meetings before each of the previous four matches. The RBFA questioned Fifa, both orally and in writing, about the reasons for this change, yet once again received no response.
To be clear, as of this moment, the RBFA has still not received any decision or any explanation from Fifa regarding this matter. It therefore has no alternative but to challenge the player’s eligibility for the upcoming match.
Regardless of the sporting outcome of this match, the RBFA is deeply concerned by the course of events and will continue to fight in the coming hours, days and months in defence of the fundamental principles of ethics, fair competition, and the interests of football as a whole.
Following its previous statement, the RBFA wishes to publicly explain the events of the past few hours.
After learning through media reports of Fifa’s decision to lift the automatic suspension of player Balogun, the RBFA sent a letter to Fifa requesting a copy of the decision, an explanation of the process that had been followed, and setting out its position regarding the applicable regulations.
As its only response, Fifa sent a letter to the RBFA stating that it considered this correspondence to constitute an appeal, that a judge had been appointed, and that the RBFA had only a few hours to complete that appeal. No information whatsoever was provided by Fifa.
For an appeal to be admissible, Fifa’s own regulations state that the reasoned decision must first have been communicated to the appellant. While the RBFA was merely seeking legitimate explanations, Fifa itself created an appeal and immediately ensured that it would be declared inadmissible.
All of this occurred while Fifa simultaneously refused to respond to the RBFA’s legitimate requests.
Furthermore, during the match coordination meeting, Fifa deliberately removed the section concerning the automatic suspension of players from its presentation.
This topic had nonetheless been part of all such meetings before each of the previous four matches. The RBFA questioned Fifa, both orally and in writing, about the reasons for this change, yet once again received no response.
To be clear, as of this moment, the RBFA has still not received any decision or any explanation from Fifa regarding this matter. It therefore has no alternative but to challenge the player’s eligibility for the upcoming match.
Regardless of the sporting outcome of this match, the RBFA is deeply concerned by the course of events and will continue to fight in the coming hours, days and months in defence of the fundamental principles of ethics, fair competition, and the interests of football as a whole.
ladbroke8745
RefChat Addict
So each pre match video shown to all participants had a slide that included an automatic suspension policy.. my guess is included players that were on yellow cards and would miss the next game if got another (as a reminder more likely).
But in today's edition, shown to Belgium (and USA im guessing) this particular slide was removed?
If thats not a conspiracy then I dont know what.
Fifa have completely tainted this world cup.
Infantino was elected in 2016 to fifa with the speech including:
"And we will restore the image of FIFA and the respect of FIFA, and everyone in the world will applaud us and will applaud all of you for what we'll do in FIFA in the future. We have to be proud of FIFA, and everyone has to be proud of FIFA and we have to be proud of what we'll do together in FIFA.
FIFA has gone through sad times, moments of crisis, but those times are over," Infantino said. "We need to implement the reform and implement good governance and transparency. We also need to have respect.
"We're going to win back this respect through hard work, commitment and we're going to make sure we can finally focus on this wonderful game that is football."
A year after, Trump is elected president of USA.
2018, a year after Trump is elected, 2 years after Infantino is elected, is when the 3 nations were awarded the competition.
Prior to being awarded, Trump stated that 6 countries could be refused entry and that Infantino said this was not good enough.
An article, dated 9th March 2017, said:
"Donald Trump’s travel ban could prevent the US from hosting the World Cup in 2026, Fifa has warned.
Gianni Infantino, the president of world football’s governing body, said on Thursday that Trump’s revised executive order, which temporarily bars entry to the US for citizens from six majority-Muslim countries, could invalidate any bid from the US. The president’s policy, Infaninto suggested, is incompatible with tournament regulations.
Infantino told reporters in London: “Teams who qualify for a World Cup need to have access to the country, otherwise there is no World Cup. That is obvious.”
Iran was one of 6 nations on that list even back then.
So despite 9 years ago saying they wont be able to host if they refuse, they turned a blind eye when Trump denied entry to a referee, Iran (other than day visas) and a few players.
And got to keep their tournament.
But in today's edition, shown to Belgium (and USA im guessing) this particular slide was removed?
If thats not a conspiracy then I dont know what.
Fifa have completely tainted this world cup.
Infantino was elected in 2016 to fifa with the speech including:
"And we will restore the image of FIFA and the respect of FIFA, and everyone in the world will applaud us and will applaud all of you for what we'll do in FIFA in the future. We have to be proud of FIFA, and everyone has to be proud of FIFA and we have to be proud of what we'll do together in FIFA.
FIFA has gone through sad times, moments of crisis, but those times are over," Infantino said. "We need to implement the reform and implement good governance and transparency. We also need to have respect.
"We're going to win back this respect through hard work, commitment and we're going to make sure we can finally focus on this wonderful game that is football."
A year after, Trump is elected president of USA.
2018, a year after Trump is elected, 2 years after Infantino is elected, is when the 3 nations were awarded the competition.
Prior to being awarded, Trump stated that 6 countries could be refused entry and that Infantino said this was not good enough.
An article, dated 9th March 2017, said:
"Donald Trump’s travel ban could prevent the US from hosting the World Cup in 2026, Fifa has warned.
Gianni Infantino, the president of world football’s governing body, said on Thursday that Trump’s revised executive order, which temporarily bars entry to the US for citizens from six majority-Muslim countries, could invalidate any bid from the US. The president’s policy, Infaninto suggested, is incompatible with tournament regulations.
Infantino told reporters in London: “Teams who qualify for a World Cup need to have access to the country, otherwise there is no World Cup. That is obvious.”
Iran was one of 6 nations on that list even back then.
So despite 9 years ago saying they wont be able to host if they refuse, they turned a blind eye when Trump denied entry to a referee, Iran (other than day visas) and a few players.
And got to keep their tournament.
I just don’t comprehend how surprised everyone is by this. The most flagrantly and brazenly corrupt President in modern, perhaps all, history combined with a corrupt organisation that places money above all else. The minute that phone call came in there was only one result.
I wanted the US to stay in the competition but no longer.
I wanted the US to stay in the competition but no longer.
I would strongly suggest people stop using the corruption word, at least unless you have concrete evidence that you would be willing to stand up with in a court. FIFA's lawyers have long tentacles and have gone after individuals in the past for what they see as libellous comments.
And to dispel a myth, don't think that as you are posting anonymously under a user name makes you immune, they can force administrators of forums to disclose the actual identities of the people making the posts if they make the required legal representations.
Plus ultimately we have to spend time as admins and mods deleting posts that could be potentially deemed as libellous, so please use common sense here.
And to dispel a myth, don't think that as you are posting anonymously under a user name makes you immune, they can force administrators of forums to disclose the actual identities of the people making the posts if they make the required legal representations.
Plus ultimately we have to spend time as admins and mods deleting posts that could be potentially deemed as libellous, so please use common sense here.
one
RefChat Addict
I am thinking what is the best outcome football fans can hope for from here on, now that FIFA have created this big mess?
One option is opening up the flood gates on appeals for red and yellow cards for the rest of the tournament and future ones.
Another is doing a backflip and reinstating the one match ban for Balogun.
My favourite option is for Infantino to resign effective immediately, Balogun decision remain as is (or backflipped) and no further appeals accepted.
But the likely outcome is for Trump to announce 10% tariff increase for any country who appeals yellow or red cards.
One option is opening up the flood gates on appeals for red and yellow cards for the rest of the tournament and future ones.
Another is doing a backflip and reinstating the one match ban for Balogun.
My favourite option is for Infantino to resign effective immediately, Balogun decision remain as is (or backflipped) and no further appeals accepted.
But the likely outcome is for Trump to announce 10% tariff increase for any country who appeals yellow or red cards.
Last edited:
ladbroke8745
RefChat Addict
Erm....
Written reasons explain absolutely nothing
In fact, makes it worse!
Despite being "ejected", he came back on the field to celebrate which was noted as part of his disciplinary.
They note that this is not an appeal.
They also note that he was found guilty of both charges (the sending off AND returning to celebrate).
But see fit to invoke article 27.
No other sending off got this treatment.
3. On 5 July 2026, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee found Balogun guilty of both infringements, imposed a one-match suspension (suspended on probation for one year) and a USD 40,000 fine, and notified the parties of the decision.
They also go as far to drag UEFA and club competitions into it..
Point 13 reads:
13. Reviewing the legal consequences of red cards in football is nothing new in the modern game. For instance, in the majority of top-tier leagues belonging to UEFA-affiliated member associations – the overturning of red cards is a common disciplinary measure, yet this has never raised concerns about crossing any “red line”. And again, it should be emphasised that in the decision under scrutiny, the red card was not overturned. Suspending the effects of a red card based on an explicit provision of the applicable regulations is a much more balanced measure.
Written reasons explain absolutely nothing
In fact, makes it worse!
Despite being "ejected", he came back on the field to celebrate which was noted as part of his disciplinary.
They note that this is not an appeal.
They also note that he was found guilty of both charges (the sending off AND returning to celebrate).
But see fit to invoke article 27.
No other sending off got this treatment.
3. On 5 July 2026, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee found Balogun guilty of both infringements, imposed a one-match suspension (suspended on probation for one year) and a USD 40,000 fine, and notified the parties of the decision.
They also go as far to drag UEFA and club competitions into it..
Point 13 reads:
13. Reviewing the legal consequences of red cards in football is nothing new in the modern game. For instance, in the majority of top-tier leagues belonging to UEFA-affiliated member associations – the overturning of red cards is a common disciplinary measure, yet this has never raised concerns about crossing any “red line”. And again, it should be emphasised that in the decision under scrutiny, the red card was not overturned. Suspending the effects of a red card based on an explicit provision of the applicable regulations is a much more balanced measure.