Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UEFA and its national associations will not participate in FIFA competitions

uefa.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 702 posts

Re: UEFA and its national associations will not participate in FIFA competitions

#651

Post by dpark »

ascagnel_ wrote: post #627
basisword wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another large part is the draft. Worst team gets first pick goes a long way to levelling the playing field.

As a lapsed NY Jets fan, I disagree -- competent ownership and management is required more than good draft picks. To wit: Tom Brady was drafted at 199 overall, but the Jets' last two QB picks (Zach Williams and Sam Darnold) are both journeyman-level players. I'm more of a hockey guy, which has a much stricter salary cap than the NFL, and the Edmonton Oilers are instructive here: they had a bunch of first overall pick…

Bad management will certainly tank a team, but he’s right. The draft structure also helps to even out the teams.

In the NFL, winning is more about quality management and coaching (and some luck) than anything else. Which is a good thing. Leagues where winners are decided mostly on who is able to spend the most on players are lopsided and kind of lame.

Re: UEFA and its national associations will not participate in FIFA competitions

#652

Post by ascagnel_ »

ahartmetz wrote: post #510
haunter wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference that FIFA ran the whole tournament now. There was no Local Organizing Committee (LOC) like with every single previous event.

I have never before seen "FIFA World Cup" used so much and I guess that's why. Do you enjoy watching FIA F1 or IOC Olympics? It's pushy and inconsiderate self-promotion that nobody wants to hear.

I also wonder if it's a trademark thing -- there are other world cups, but there's only one FIFA capital-W world capital-C cup. Just off the top of my head, the last decade has had cricket, rugby, basketball, and ice hockey world cups.

Re: UEFA and its national associations will not participate in FIFA competitions

#653

Post by dzonga »

ahartmetz wrote: post #511
dzonga wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

bribery until recently was legal in Switzerland.

Probably the same way it was in Germany: in some foreign countries, where it's the cost of doing business. Switzerland has an unusually direct democracy, which keeps their house in order. Maybe it's also what allows Switzerland to benefit from crime and corruption without getting infected with the rot.

I will take the Swiss form of governance over any country's or model though.

Re: UEFA and its national associations will not participate in FIFA competitions

#654

Post by PaulRobinson »

opinologo wrote: post #487
Fnoord wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Messi should've gotten red in the Algeria match (same ref who didn't have the balls to give star player a card, was doing the finals). Against England, Argentina were playing rugby again, and the ref just let it pass. Against Egypt, Egypt got a goal disqualified which.. was a goal. Against Switzerland, a rule of identity mismatch was used wrongly (it can only be applied on same team). Argentina was lucky to end the f…

[flagged]

I guess you also think the "Hand of God" goal, was also a legitimate and fair goal because something something Maradonna something something Malvinas something something god?

Look, it's football. We're all entitled to have opinions, state them with vigour and passion, but...

Step back. Is it fair to drop the "racist" slur on somebody for having a different perspective?

Referees do their best, and often get it wrong, but it seems to most people - including many neutrals - that refs got it wrong more times than not when Argentina was playing, and in Argentina's favour.

Is that a conspiracy? Well, Infantino definitely wanted Argentina in the final, so did he try and create that somehow? He seems pretty shady, it's hard for people to trust that he _didn't_.

But I'm prepared to accept it was just variance. The problem is, that variance undermined the competition for many people, in the same way hydration breaks did. It made it a worse World Cup for many fans.

I get that for an Argentinian, that seems unfair, but if this had happened to England's benefit, do you honestly think you'd be making the same accusations and would accept it if any criticism that came in their direction was met with slurs?

Peace. Chill. We're good. We're brothers in football. Let's hope we get another World Cup in our lifetimes, and that we get to enjoy it - and that means something different to what we just saw, for everyone's sake.

Re: UEFA and its national associations will not participate in FIFA competitions

#656

Post by _djo_ »

nephihaha wrote: post #397
pirates wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFCON is already a thing and while it is decently popular it’s no where near the world cup or the euros. Part of that is that it takes place during the domestic club competitions though.

African teams are definitely up and coming. South Africa was surprisingly poor in the tournament but there were some decent performances by African teams, notably Morocco. Cape Verde also punched (or kicked?) way above their weight.

South Africa performed above its traditional level just in reaching the second round, which it has not done before.

Re: UEFA and its national associations will not participate in FIFA competitions

#657

Post by dpark »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #654
opinologo wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I guess you also think the "Hand of God" goal, was also a legitimate and fair goal because something something Maradonna something something Malvinas something something god? Look, it's football. We're all entitled to have opinions, state them with vigour and passion, but... Step back. Is it fair to drop the "racist" slur on somebody for having a different perspective? Referees do their best, and often get it wrong,…

> But I'm prepared to accept it was just variance. The problem is, that variance undermined the competition for many people

Honestly I found it really frustrating that Balogun got that red card (and gross when political meddling suspended it) while Messi got nothing for a similar infraction. But variance is part of the game. I don’t actually think most of it is in any way malicious and I am not sure refs can do much more. So much is subjective. I’ve watched games where they hand out yellows for every minor infraction and it’s a shitty experience for everyone (fans, players, and coaches).

I do think Messi gets favoritism. He gets awarded free kicks right outside the box for softball fouls that no one else gets. But they are trying to protect their star. They don’t want the WNBA thing where every other game Clark gets egregiously fouled.

> in the same way hydration breaks did. It made it a worse World Cup for many fans.

I don’t really understand the hate for the hydration breaks. Giving athletes some water seems reasonable even if the underlying reason is ads. I think they should be 1-2 minute breaks, though.

The halftime show in the final was more egregious than the hydration.

Re: UEFA and its national associations will not participate in FIFA competitions

#658

Post by vehemenz »

jrflowers wrote: post #464
vehemenz wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm American, so I'm not sure who your comment is for. Anti-Americanism isn't a "gotcha" to me. If anything, it's confirmation of the persistent asymmetry in these discussions. Football (or basketball, if you're Lithuanian) is a massive cultural institution in many parts of the world. The difference is that sports—just sports—are the institution in America. We could look at revenues, but that's far too easy. Look at…

Please talk more about how not wanting things ruined is anti-Americanism

Again, if you don't want things ruined, then that implies that you don't think football, in its current state, is not already ruined. This isn't a position you've earned, you're just assuming it.

And it's awkward to defend because, as I've already stated, the status quo is: colonial powers controlling the game at the pro/international level, bad and inconsistent officiating, normalization of cynical/unsportsmanlike play, and massive corruption. As an American, these are easy to see because we have the advantage of a massive sporting culture. We have salary caps to enforce parity and scrutinize our own leagues' rules. There is a competitive marketplace for sports. If things are broken, people stop watching.

What about the US's influence in improving soccer would ruin it further? Moreover, do you understand your own sport well enough to make the judgment?

Re: UEFA and its national associations will not participate in FIFA competitions

#659

Post by senderista »

triceratops wrote: post #501
albedoa wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why? >> Slavery > Yes it's bad. Are you just learning about the slavery or did you know about it when you asked why.

I knew about it. I also knew Qatar isn't the only one. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafala_system . So I wondered if it was something else on top of that. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have similar records on human rights and treatment of foreign workers. Further afield there's Mauritania: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauritania#Modern_slavery

Yes, they all should be pariah states.

Re: UEFA and its national associations will not participate in FIFA competitions

#660

Post by johneth »

mediumdeviation wrote: post #584
zimpenfish wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since AFC have now joined them[0][1], FIFA no longer have the votes for this to pass. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/ce345l6kg6ro - "Uefa - the body that governs European football - has 55 votes. Concacaf, which oversees football in North, Central America and the Caribbean, has 35 and Asia has 46." which only leaves 75 votes from the 211 and he'd need 106. [1] I've no idea why the BBC doesn't prope…

On the capitalization, it seems the BBC will always use title case for acronyms (Nasa, Nato) and all caps for initialisms (ATM, SNP). I did try to search for SQL to see if the Beeb thinks it should be read as Sequel or Es-que-el, but their search refuse to show exact results and keeps giving me articles about the Scottish National Party instead.

From their style guide:

"Where you would normally pronounce the abbreviation as a string of letters - an initialism - use all capitals with no full stops or spaces (eg FA, UNHCR). However, our style is to use lower case with an initial cap for acronyms where you would normally pronounce the set of letters as a word (eg Maga, Sars, Aids, Nasa, Opec, Apec)."

(Under "acronym": https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/a )

Post reply on HN