I'm sure sponsor pressure had a lot to do with it. You can sell "It's just the Americans" about the DOJ investigations to a lot of your voters, but when the money goes away you don't have the means of control.
Not sure but he touched on something that might have struck a nerve. The ONLY people who could do something about FIFA were the sponsors. Threaten to cut down the money tree and change will come faster than you think.
Offhand, the only other agency that might have sufficient weight to move things behind the scenes was UEFA. They have the teams, the money and most of the relevant fans. If they move in sync with Brazil and Argentina, FIFA runs out of relevant matches.
His show is awesome and really hit the ground running! Really makes the Colbert Report replacement (The Nightly Show) look terrible by comparison (started around the same time but to be fair LWT is once a week while TNS is 4 days/week). Looking forward to other things that John will bring into the light, I've learned quite a bit from his show (or rather his show has wetted my appetite to do more research on topics he covers).
The thing I like so much about LWT is that some of the segments are a good 12-15 minutes long, which is an eternity in TV land. With that time, he can actually dig into topics with more depth to give viewers a better understanding of the background and what is happening (and still manage to be hilarious). I think back to his bit on the supplements industry as a good example of this.
I NEVER see this type of analysis on any news shows besides Frontline.
> I NEVER see this type of analysis on any news shows besides Frontline.
The two things those have in common is the lack of commercials. It gives much more time (10 more minutes in a 30 minute show!) and lets you not have to recap after a break. It will be interesting to see how Vice's new nightly news show on HBO will work.
No, but having both seen segments generally pointed at themes I agree with, and segments generally pointed at things I don't agree with, just, be aware that he is a comedian, and do not take his assessment of any of the positions, arguments, or antics of the other side as anything remotely resembling fair, or even necessarily particularly well investigated beyond "what do they say/argue/do that I can tell jokes about?"
To be fair, that can sometimes still be more investigation into the "other side" than what the other media outlets pursue, who appear to often operate on a "what's the bare minimum of the side that the reporter does not agree with, that I can show to make it appear that I've done my due diligence?" I find the occasional accusations here on HN about how frustrating it is that the media feels compelled to show both sides "equally" to be amusing... it would be a great improvement on our media if that actually happened more often. Far more often what you get is the positive propaganda of the favored side, and in the interests of "balance", the favored side's caricature of the other side's views. (Those that find this too balanced and would still like the news to take an even stronger stand may want to consider whether they would consider instead simply enjoying the output of the many straight-up propaganda-and-biased-reporting outlets that can be found on the Internet, for all sides, including sides you didn't even know existed.)
It's funny, the parallels between Putin and Blatter. They both have tried hard to hold onto power, knowing that when they lose it the skeletons will start flying out of the closet.
Putin already tried to do so [0] by painting the corruption investigation as unjust US persecution.
[0] Well, more likely tried to pre-empt any effect the investigation of FIFA corruption would have on Russia's 2018 World Cup, but it amounts to the same thing in effect.
Just wondering - has anyone heared any other side of the story? Whenever a story appears to be such clear cut black and white with one evil villain, my septics radar goes up.
I suspect he was at least complicit. One other side of the story is this: Why does the US care? The answer is that if getting the World Cup essentially requires bribes then that makes it impossible for the US to compete, because bribery is prosecuted in the US. So this is less about justice than economic benefit.
> Whenever a story appears to be such clear cut black and white with one evil villain
Whoever said there was one evil villain? Note that while Blatter may be implicated in the corruption investigation, one of the specific schemes already charged was an attempt to use bribes to motivate people to vote for Blatter's opponent in a previous FIFA election.
This doesn't look as much like a hierarchical conspiracy with one bad actor at the top, as a whole nest of -- sometimes cooperating, sometimes competing -- bad actors.
Blatter's strategy was usually too go against the UEFA, the European soccer confederation and the most powerful continental confederation. For example, he championed the South African World Cup bid for 2010. ( After the UEFA managed to get the 2006 cup for Germany.) And he presides over a remarkable increase in the importance of soccer.
So he gets reelected, because he is actually quite successful and has a clearly defined voter base. This base may or may not like the corruption, but that is simply not their main concern.
> I thought by FIFA's bylaws once a person leaves their position, all investigations into any ethics issues cease? Or is that just internal investigations?
Its just internal FIFA investigations. If a private organizations by-laws could cut-off criminal investigations, every criminal would be creating their own organizations with by-laws structured in a convenient way to do that.
I don't think FIFA's bylaws can somehow supersede those of every country on earth. This is a criminal investigation into FIFA by the US, not a FIFA investigation into a FIFA official by another FIFA official.
I know that the TPP is happening and it's being done without much oversight. But I suspect that if FIFA had somehow attained worldwide diplomatic immunity for its officials we'd know about it. And once an official stepped down, well, they'd then lose that immunity (not that it's ever existed) and would again be open to prosecution.
For an interesting take on the FIFA charges, YC's Casetext had several articles published by Heather Lowe -
Legal Counsel and Director of Government Affairs at Global Financial Integrity:
Looks like they planned this before the election.
There was no suitable candidate who would be able to do the job that has to be done now. Now its time to find one.
And i would be surprised if they can connect him with bribery etc.
He strikes me as that kind of person who likes power over a bag of money.
The problem with corruption is that, in the absence of careful enforcement, you don't have to choose. Blatter has had both power and, I'd wager, a great deal of money for quite some time now.
> And i would be surprised if they can connect him with bribery etc. He strikes me as that kind of person who likes power over a bag of money.
Money and power are generally fungible, and you don't have to handle a bag of money at either end to be part of a conspiracy that involves financial crimes.
The leaders of criminal conspiracies probably generally prefer power to money, with money being interesting, to the extent it is, as a means to power.
It's convenient that he steps down now, mere days after the election that swore him into power once again. If he stepped down during the election Prince Ali would have won. This way, Blatter can call his own election and personally vouch for a new candidate to take over.
To me, Blatter was just the face of corruption. I simply cannot see someone from inside FIFA being able to resolve the corruption problems, mostly because these people are the problem. This isn't a new thing, and this isn't something that arrived with Blatter. Some journalists have been investigating corruption in FIFA for decades. Hell, most countries have been a part of it. It's only surfacing now because the bribery is so blatant, and our bribes simply weren't enough.
People will cheer and say that "we finally did it", but I cannot see anything truly changing. The only way FIFA will change is through the authorities.
The "FIFA is corrupt to the core" argument misunderstands the nature of FIFA's corruption.
It's only the few decision makers that are relevant, it isn't like a government where there is something to be gained by bribery on each level, even the lowest civil servant. Unlike corruption in a nation, we are not talking about a culture of corruption that involves millions. There's no point in bribing just a lowly FIFA official or bureaucrat, most you can buy that way is easier access to the big boys.
That small group of corrupt decision makers is now rapidly diminishing, and there is not a long line of eager replacements, especially now that the feds are looking over their shoulders.
> That small group of corrupt decision makers is now rapidly diminishing, and there is not a long line of eager replacements, especially now that the feds are looking over their shoulders.
And not just the (US) Feds -- the Swiss are conducting a separate corruption investigation relating to the 2018 and 2022 world cups, and other governments are interested as well. Essentially, the fact that the World Cup is a big national prestige event and that past corruption has been brought into the light means there is likely going to be intense scrutiny from all sides going forward -- sure, for every beneficiary of corruption there are lots of losers, and when those losers are major nation states, they have a pretty impressive ability, if they turn their will to it, to address any problems, especially if given the convenient excuse provided by actual corruption to prosecute.
56 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 144 ms ] threadhttps://youtu.be/qr6ar3xJL_Q?t=702
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr6ar3xJL_Q&t=12m20s
I NEVER see this type of analysis on any news shows besides Frontline.
The two things those have in common is the lack of commercials. It gives much more time (10 more minutes in a 30 minute show!) and lets you not have to recap after a break. It will be interesting to see how Vice's new nightly news show on HBO will work.
To be fair, that can sometimes still be more investigation into the "other side" than what the other media outlets pursue, who appear to often operate on a "what's the bare minimum of the side that the reporter does not agree with, that I can show to make it appear that I've done my due diligence?" I find the occasional accusations here on HN about how frustrating it is that the media feels compelled to show both sides "equally" to be amusing... it would be a great improvement on our media if that actually happened more often. Far more often what you get is the positive propaganda of the favored side, and in the interests of "balance", the favored side's caricature of the other side's views. (Those that find this too balanced and would still like the news to take an even stronger stand may want to consider whether they would consider instead simply enjoying the output of the many straight-up propaganda-and-biased-reporting outlets that can be found on the Internet, for all sides, including sides you didn't even know existed.)
Hopefully the next president won't be another corrupt liar (Platini, Warner etc).
Putin already tried to do so [0] by painting the corruption investigation as unjust US persecution.
[0] Well, more likely tried to pre-empt any effect the investigation of FIFA corruption would have on Russia's 2018 World Cup, but it amounts to the same thing in effect.
It's FIFA regime change.
Whoever said there was one evil villain? Note that while Blatter may be implicated in the corruption investigation, one of the specific schemes already charged was an attempt to use bribes to motivate people to vote for Blatter's opponent in a previous FIFA election.
This doesn't look as much like a hierarchical conspiracy with one bad actor at the top, as a whole nest of -- sometimes cooperating, sometimes competing -- bad actors.
So he gets reelected, because he is actually quite successful and has a clearly defined voter base. This base may or may not like the corruption, but that is simply not their main concern.
Its just internal FIFA investigations. If a private organizations by-laws could cut-off criminal investigations, every criminal would be creating their own organizations with by-laws structured in a convenient way to do that.
I know that the TPP is happening and it's being done without much oversight. But I suspect that if FIFA had somehow attained worldwide diplomatic immunity for its officials we'd know about it. And once an official stepped down, well, they'd then lose that immunity (not that it's ever existed) and would again be open to prosecution.
"From Mafia history: Feds close progressively the circle around the big fish via associates. They get him last to avoid plea bargaining."
The circle was being closed, and hopefully Blatter will still face some consequence while he attempts to run away from this mess.
FIFA: The Bribery Case with No Bribery Charge https://casetext.com/posts/xyrwas9p8swf80k9-fifa-the-bribery...
Can Victims Sue for Damages? https://casetext.com/posts/pz8uyoy048izr529-can-fifa-victims...
And i would be surprised if they can connect him with bribery etc. He strikes me as that kind of person who likes power over a bag of money.
Money and power are generally fungible, and you don't have to handle a bag of money at either end to be part of a conspiracy that involves financial crimes.
The leaders of criminal conspiracies probably generally prefer power to money, with money being interesting, to the extent it is, as a means to power.
To me, Blatter was just the face of corruption. I simply cannot see someone from inside FIFA being able to resolve the corruption problems, mostly because these people are the problem. This isn't a new thing, and this isn't something that arrived with Blatter. Some journalists have been investigating corruption in FIFA for decades. Hell, most countries have been a part of it. It's only surfacing now because the bribery is so blatant, and our bribes simply weren't enough.
People will cheer and say that "we finally did it", but I cannot see anything truly changing. The only way FIFA will change is through the authorities.
It's only the few decision makers that are relevant, it isn't like a government where there is something to be gained by bribery on each level, even the lowest civil servant. Unlike corruption in a nation, we are not talking about a culture of corruption that involves millions. There's no point in bribing just a lowly FIFA official or bureaucrat, most you can buy that way is easier access to the big boys.
That small group of corrupt decision makers is now rapidly diminishing, and there is not a long line of eager replacements, especially now that the feds are looking over their shoulders.
And not just the (US) Feds -- the Swiss are conducting a separate corruption investigation relating to the 2018 and 2022 world cups, and other governments are interested as well. Essentially, the fact that the World Cup is a big national prestige event and that past corruption has been brought into the light means there is likely going to be intense scrutiny from all sides going forward -- sure, for every beneficiary of corruption there are lots of losers, and when those losers are major nation states, they have a pretty impressive ability, if they turn their will to it, to address any problems, especially if given the convenient excuse provided by actual corruption to prosecute.
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1728032,00...
=======================================
Cut off 1 head and 2 more will appear
=======================================
Hail FIFA!