Football 18/19

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

So they can play in the world cup... Not all countries in FIFA will want to host a World Cup, many will know it isn't viable (primarily due to economic reasons).

that's not all that FIFA does tho. If a country doesn't deserve one benefit of FIFA, why should it deserve any others?

And anyway, if a country is too-abhorrent to host a tournament, why should FIFA host the team of that abhorrent country, or allow membership from that abhorrent country?

It's a can of worms once opened, where the inevitable consequence is that FIFA stops serving the purpose it exists for (as a world footie org), to instead become firstly an advocate of one idea of social justice.

And for what? Would it have (say) Qatar or Saudi change their attitudes before they're ready to? Nope. Ideas happen when their time has come, not because someone has a gun to your head.

Tell you what: why don't you do your own personal boycott on these countries, and give up all oil-based transport?  

 

Quote

The whole world is welcome to be a member of FIFA but that doesn't mean they are all suitable to host the World Cup. 

IYO.

FIFA is a world body. It has to take on board opinions from all around the world.

Look, I'd think it was fantastic if FIFA denied countries FIFA benefits and that country changed 10 minutes later because of it, but that's not how the world is or can ever be. The UK is not the world's moral guardian, and nor is FIFA.

Edited May 23, 2019 by eFestivals

[CRW5252]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

that's not all that FIFA does tho. If a country doesn't deserve one benefit of FIFA, why should it deserve any others?

And anyway, if a country is too-abhorrent to host a tournament, why should FIFA host the team of that abhorrent country, or allow membership from that abhorrent country?

It's a can of worms once opened, where the inevitable consequence is that FIFA stops serving the purpose it exists for (as a world footie org), to instead become firstly an advocate of one idea of social justice.

And for what? Would it have (say) Qatar or Saudi change their attitudes before they're ready to? Nope. Ideas happen when their time has come, not because someone has a gun to your head.

Tell you what: why don't you do your own personal boycott on these countries, and give up all oil-based transport?  

 

IYO.

FIFA is a world body. It has to take on board opinions from all around the world.

Look, I'd think it was fantastic if FIFA denied countries FIFA benefits and that country changed 10 minutes later because of it, but that's not how the world is or can ever be. The UK is not the world's moral guardian, and nor is FIFA.

The World Cup is supposed to be an international tournament where people from all around the world can attend. Nations that have laws that discriminate against specific people should not be hosting the tournament. FIFA will take this into account when they look at locations for the World Cup but, in this case, it was overlooked due to bribery. 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, CRW5252 said:

The World Cup is supposed to be an international tournament where people from all around the world can attend. Nations that have laws that discriminate against specific people should not be hosting the tournament.

they discriminate against particular acts, not people.

And that's what all laws are.

And we all agree with some laws and disagree with others - even within our own country.

An international org either has to do its best to put that stuff aside, or it has to accept it can't be that international org because it will be excluding others on the basis of different ideas.

When it comes down to it, similar arguments could be made about the UN. Why should we sit down with other countries we fundamentally disagree with?

The answer is that talking is better than ignoring, and that we have to try and get along no matter what views we hold and make the world work. 

I don't think a world where everything down to the everyday stuff such as sport is so polarised would be a good thing, and particularly not over ideas we've only adopted ourselves in the last 10 years. The world will never jump all together with cultural changes.

 

1 minute ago, CRW5252 said:

FIFA will take this into account when they look at locations for the World Cup but, in this case, it was overlooked due to bribery. 

 - the only thing FIFA work by is bribery. That's been the case for at least 40 years.

But before that it did operate with a very British view towards the world ... which is the reason why the bribe gang are now in charge. The rest of the world didn't like being run with those British attitudes.  

[kaosmark2]

Would those of you criticising have refused to hold a world Cup in South Africa? 

[pink_triangle]

2 hours ago, CRW5252 said:

I completely disagree, I certainly would rule that location out. Mkhirtaryan is going to miss one of the biggest games in his career due to the discrimination that is prominent in Azerbaijan. That's very, very sad.  

 

UEFA didn't know he would be in the final when the location was decided. He says his safety can't be guaranteed and Azerbaijan says it can. Do we automatically give the player the veto? What if a Muslim player isnt happy with a final in London due to right wing Islamaphobia?

[eFestivals]

19 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Would those of you criticising have refused to hold a world Cup in South Africa? 

We had one.  

Oh, you mean before Mandal walked free.

I was all for the sporting boycott there, but I don't see it as quite the same - for a start that was about an issue on which there was 100% consensus amongst other countries.

I think a better example is the 1984 Olympics in Russia where countries opinions were split and the only real loser was the event and not Russia.

Edited May 23, 2019 by eFestivals

[pink_triangle]

2 hours ago, CRW5252 said:

 

They are completely different issues and I don't think either should be overlooked just because of the current state of football.

I'd ask you to just place yourself as a fan of either Arsenal or Chelsea who's gone to all their respective games this season. The final being in Baku means that many of these type of fans can no longer attend the culmination of the season and if they do attend they will have to spend an absolute fortune. It's just disgusting and, for me, highlights some of the key problems with modern football. 

They are different issues,but I think they are linked. Arsenal and Chelsea (and several others) are more than happy when corporate football gives them loads of money and better players. I have heard very few Arsenal or Chelsea moaning about how corporate football has created the environment which gave both clubs a huge advantage in getting to the final. However when you are willing to dine with the devil dont expect only good things to happen.

I would encourage all premiership fans fed up with this corporate football and support some lower league clubs where it plays less of a role. In terms of expense nothing to stop Arsenal and. Chelsea subsidising fan travel, neither club is short of money.

[pink_triangle]

2 hours ago, CRW5252 said:

That's a bizzare attitude. As a society, we are trying to encourage acceptability of homosexuality. Placing one of the biggest sport tournaments in the world at a country where homosexuality is illegal is sending out a terrible message. 

I wouldn't have given the tournament to Qatar (although I do like the idea of winter world cup) in the first place. My point is once the decision (wrongly in my view was made to put it there, I wouldnt give an individual player a veto to move it, providing Qatar can guarantee safety.

[pink_triangle]

3 hours ago, zahidf said:

Well, the host country said he's safe as long as he 'sticks to football' which isn't the most reassuring statement ever!

I'd say a country with a dodgy regime and complete lack of airport facilities isn't the best place for a European final:-/

Is that different to Russia? Players stuck to football and most fans lost complete interest in the dodgy regime when the football started.

[eFestivals]

if we're banning footie cos of despots, we'd need to shut down the Premier league. ? 

[CRW5252]

3 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

They are different issues,but I think they are linked. Arsenal and Chelsea (and several others) are more than happy when corporate football gives them loads of money and better players. I have heard very few Arsenal or Chelsea moaning about how corporate football has created the environment which gave both clubs a huge advantage in getting to the final. However when you are willing to dine with the devil dont expect only good things to happen.

The fans aren't willing to 'dine with the devil', it's the clubs themselves that do that. 

3 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I would encourage all premiership fans fed up with this corporate football and support some lower league clubs where it plays less of a role. 

Any football fan would know it isn't that easy. I've been an Arsenal fan all my life and I'll  always have a connection with the club for that reason. It isn't as simple just supporting a lower league team.

6 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

In terms of expense nothing to stop Arsenal and. Chelsea subsidising fan travel, neither club is short of money.

Agreed, it's a shame this hasn't been offered.

14 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

UEFA didn't know he would be in the final when the location was decided. He says his safety can't be guaranteed and Azerbaijan says it can. Do we automatically give the player the veto? What if a Muslim player isnt happy with a final in London due to right wing Islamaphobia?

They did know that there was tension between Armenia and Azerbaijan though. This really should have ruled them out hosting the final. If the conflict was more high profile it certainly would of. 

I won't pretend to be an expert on the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan but, from what I have researched, the discrimination towards Armenia's in Azerbaijan is much more common practice than Islamaphobia in England.

11 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I wouldn't have given the tournament to Qatar (although I do like the idea of winter world cup) in the first place. My point is once the decision (wrongly in my view was made to put it there, I wouldnt give an individual player a veto to move it, providing Qatar can guarantee safety.

It's not an 'individual player', it's thousands of gay fans, players, officials etc. that will not be able to attend due to discriminatory laws in Qatar.

[lost]

47 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Would those of you criticising have refused to hold a world Cup in South Africa? 

South Korea have had one too. Age of consent is 20 there. Discriminating against sexually active couples who were 18 or 19.

Shared with Japan where the age of consent is 13.

Edited May 23, 2019 by lost

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, CRW5252 said:

It's not an 'individual player', it's thousands of gay fans, players, officials etc. that will not be able to attend due to discriminatory laws in Qatar.

that's not accurate. They're perfectly able to attend. No laws stop them from being able to attend. And they're aware of the local laws, and they have no reason to fear unless they break those local laws.

And, it's worth noting, that broad scenario is 100% the same for anyone that might attend. 

They might choose to not attend because they won't be free to go about their normal life in their normal way - but that (say*) doesn't stop tens of thousands of people from visiting Dubai each year; they simply moderate their (drinking) behaviour while there.

(* yes, I realise it's not quite the same).

[pink_triangle]

2 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

The fans aren't willing to 'dine with the devil', it's the clubs themselves that do that. 

I hear very few fans moaning about the advantages they get from corporate football. Most want the good without the bad. In the real world that doesn't happen. I didn't hear a single Chelsea or Arsenal fan complain about the financial advantages they had in the tournament which is the main factor they are in the final.

 

6 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

 

They did know that there was tension between Armenia and Azerbaijan though. This really should have ruled them out hosting the final. If the conflict was more high profile it certainly would of. 

I won't pretend to be an expert on the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan but, from what I have researched, the discrimination towards Armenia's in Azerbaijan is much more common practice than Islamaphobia in England.

 

They also know that most seasons there are no players from either country in the final. If you go down this path how do you decide which conflicts/threats merit a final being moved, where is the line drawn, who decides?

 

10 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

 

It's not an 'individual player', it's thousands of gay fans, players, officials etc. that will not be able to attend due to discriminatory laws in Qatar.

I dont think there has ever been an openly gay player at a world cup, so in that way it would have minimal impact. I take your point about the fans and that's one reason I didn't support it in the first place. My point was more that if an international footballer did come out, I wouldn't give that player a veto to move the tournament providing he was allowed to play and the country would guarantee his safety.

[kaosmark2]

39 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

We had one.  

Oh, you mean before Mandal walked free.

I was all for the sporting boycott there, but I don't see it as quite the same - for a start that was about an issue on which there was 100% consensus amongst other countries.

I think a better example is the 1984 Olympics in Russia where countries opinions were split and the only real loser was the event and not Russia.

Exactly, and it was generally considered a really good tournament, so I'm intrigued if there's the same opposition 9 years ago. 

[CRW5252]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

that's not accurate. They're perfectly able to attend. No laws stop them from being able to attend. And they're aware of the local laws, and they have no reason to fear unless they break those local laws.

And, it's worth noting, that broad scenario is 100% the same for anyone that might attend. 

They might choose to not attend because they won't be free to go about their normal life in their normal way - but that (say*) doesn't stop tens of thousands of people from visiting Dubai each year; they simply moderate their (drinking) behaviour while there.

(* yes, I realise it's not quite the same).

Drinking habits and sexuality are completely different. Not even worth comparing.

The fact is many homosexuals will not feel comfortable attending due to the local laws. I feel (and I believe the majority of the world agrees, although I have no stats to back it up) that the World Cup should be hosted by someone who welcomes all types of people.

[pink_triangle]

5 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Exactly, and it was generally considered a really good tournament, so I'm intrigued if there's the same opposition 9 years ago. 

There's also no doubt that if England had a great world cup. Most (not all ) fans would quickly put politics to the back of their mind.

[CRW5252]

7 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I hear very few fans moaning about the advantages they get from corporate football. Most want the good without the bad. In the real world that doesn't happen. I didn't hear a single Chelsea or Arsenal fan complain about the financial advantages they had in the tournament which is the main factor they are in the final.

Why would they? I think if you asked the majority of them questions about their financial advantages, they would agree that they are lucky in that regard. Despite this, there is also plenty of negatives of supporting a teams as big as Arsenal or Chelsea and there is nothing wrong with pointing that out.

Sometimes I wish I supported a team in the lower leagues where season tickets were a reasonable price.

15 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

They also know that most seasons there are no players from either country in the final. If you go down this path how do you decide which conflicts/threats merit a final being moved, where is the line drawn, who decides?

There already is a line and we have already gone down that path. UEFA's line just isn't where I think it should be.

19 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I dont think there has ever been an openly gay player at a world cup, so in that way it would have minimal impact. I take your point about the fans and that's one reason I didn't support it in the first place. My point was more that if an international footballer did come out, I wouldn't give that player a veto to move the tournament providing he was allowed to play and the country would guarantee his safety.

It would be interesting to see if Qatar did let the player play in that scenario and, if yes, how he would be treated. 

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

Drinking habits and sexuality are completely different. Not even worth comparing.

they're comparable on the level of being able to moderate behaviour for that temporary visit, if you want to.

And if you don't want to you don't visit.

9 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

The fact is many homosexuals will not feel comfortable attending due to the local laws.

I don't disagree.

But why should football be the body which says only laws they agree with should be allowed? Would the majority of worldwide football supporters even agree with it if it did?

[CRW5252]

14 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

There's also no doubt that if England had a great world cup. Most (not all ) fans would quickly put politics to the back of their mind.

That's completely irrelevant to whether it is acceptable to host the finals there or not 

[CRW5252]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

they're comparable on the level of being able to moderate behaviour for that temporary visit, if you want to.

And if you don't want to you don't visit.

I don't disagree.

But why should football be the body which says only laws they agree with should be allowed? Would the majority of worldwide football supporters even agree with it if it did?

My opinion is that the World Cup should be free for everyone to attend without discrimination. If a country decides they don't want to be open to everyone attending, then they shouldn't be able to host the event.

Other laws not regarding discrimination should not be considered (within reason), it is specifically the discriminatory laws I have a problem with.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

My opinion is that the World Cup should be free for everyone to attend without discrimination. If a country decides they don't want to be open to everyone attending, then they shouldn't be able to host the event.

everyone is allowed to attend the world cup, without discrimination.

No one is allowed to break local laws no matter what locale. That's how it works.

 

7 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

If a country decides they don't want to be open to everyone attending, then they shouldn't be able to host the event.

so (say) the UK should let in Canadian weed smokers and let them act as they would in Canada?

And (say) the uk should let in USA gun nuts and allow them to carry arms as they would at home?

 

[pink_triangle]

20 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

Why would they? I think if you asked the majority of them questions about their financial advantages, they would agree that they are lucky in that regard. Despite this, there is also plenty of negatives of supporting a teams as big as Arsenal or Chelsea and there is nothing wrong with pointing that out.

No issue with pointing it out, my point is corporate football brings both advantages and disadvantages. People who moan about how everything is dictated by money have no issues when it advantages their team.

20 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

 

There already is a line and we have already gone down that path. UEFA's line just isn't where I think it should be.

 

However if I asked you to simply describe where that line should be set, you (and anyone) would struggle as life is not simple. I have no doubt if UEFA moved this final, future players would try and move others quoting precedent.

 

25 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

 

It would be interesting to see if Qatar did let the player play in that scenario and, if yes, how he would be treated. 

I don’t think it would be that interesting. Qatar would let the player play and hope his team got knocked out quickly!

[CRW5252]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

everyone is allowed to attend the world cup, without discrimination.

No one is allowed to break local laws no matter what locale. That's how it works.

Homosexual people are discriminated against in Qatar and for visitors it will be no different.

 

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

so (say) the UK should let in Canadian weed smokers and let them act as they would in Canada?

And (say) the uk should let in USA gun nuts and allow them to carry arms as they would at home?

 

As I said, sexuality is very different. My issue is with discriminatory laws. 

Edited May 23, 2019 by CRW5252

[pink_triangle]

17 minutes ago, CRW5252 said:

My opinion is that the World Cup should be free for everyone to attend without discrimination. If a country decides they don't want to be open to everyone attending, then they shouldn't be able to host the event.

Other laws not regarding discrimination should not be considered (within reason), it is specifically the discriminatory laws I have a problem with.

Last time I checked my passport didn’t say gay or straight.