³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

I expect that at some point FIFA itself will be challenged for supremacy of the game, probably by the FA (leading a consortium of European FAs). Should this fail, we may see a breakaway sport emerging, a la Rugby League. Perhaps this would be no bad thing; we might get goal line technology, properly managed time on the pitch, harsher rules for diving and dissent etc. However, such a split would probably mean the end of international football as we know it.

I don't see the IFAB disbanding, but maybe the rules will change that the Home Nations don't have 50% of the vote. Football is truly global phenomenon now; is it right that the UK still occupies power far beyond its current world standing?

The end of the Scottish national team? Not if we have moved to a federal or independent status by that point. But if not then in an extreme situation it would effectively mean a UK national team which might also mean:

- the rolling together of the English FA, SFA, WFA and the association in NI feeding into a UK association dominated by you know who

- the rolling up of the Scottish, English and Welsh leagues feeding into a British League. It would solve the problem of the big Old Firm but not much else.

The English FA have behaved poorly on this. They lost a WC bid and wouldn't be acting in the way they are doing if they had won it.

That said FIFA need to be reformed there is no question of that. In the short-term though it will probably result in a loss of voting power of the IFAB. Times change after all.

Blatter's successor will most probably be Platiini. If not, there is a strong chance that the Europeans may well walk away at some point from this shambles of an organisation.

No answer, eh?

I doubt if the future of the national team is in danger but I wouldn't have a problem if the voting power was reduced.
The Home Nations are no longer the world leaders in football and this should be reflected in voting strength.

FIFA will have to change or be changed in the next few years, even if we have to wait until Blatter goes,and Platini will take over with his own ideas of how the game should be run.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I previewed this post long and hard moderator. I do not think I have said anything that is not clearly my own opinion. Please post.

Are FIFA moderating ?

Please tune to R5live right now moderator. I do realise entirely that you have to be careful. My post at #5 is entirely my own opinion. FIFA can sue me ! Mind you, hard to take the breeks of a highlander !

#6 & 8
I'll save you the bother...

The SPL should join with the best teams from Wales, Northern Ireland and Cape Verde to form a competitive league. The SPL is seventytwelfth in the FIFA name rankings and the OF are three hundredty and five in the UEFA coefficients.

etc.

#10 He really couldn't have said it better himself! You should also have mentioned Greenland as well just for consistency.

Hibby, mention the name of the organisation you are referring to alongside words such as 'allegation'and 'cor__ption' will get you moderated straight away. The David Bond blogs are so heavily moderated it is untrue

This is all very vague with no specifics about who or where the threat might come from.

jim
do you not think that fifa have enough on their plate to sort out, their sponsors have said they are worried about corruption allegation's and sepp blatter just seems oblivious to the turmoil that could soon errupt. jack warner seems to have plenty to say, lets just watch this space and see what happens. scotland, england, ireland and wales are quite safe for years to come.
i will say this, the english and scottish football association's were right to question the re-election of sepp blatter, common sense tells you it doesn't feel right and the procedure that picked the 2018 and 2022 world cup hosts seems less than perfect, just ask australia who want 46 million aussie dollars back that was spent on their bid.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#11, Seems so Rob.

It is clear to us all that you cannot have a free for all on forums such as this. Equally over-moderation kills a topic stone dead. It was referred just as R5 were discussing events live on the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳. These boys did not miss and hit the wall. My comment was feeble and mealy-mouthed compared to those guys.

Consistency would be nice. Ho-hum.

"a new broom at the head of Fifa might also wonder why one country, the UK, is allowed to have four individual teams attempting to qualify for the World Cup"

Probably something to do with the fact that Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are four individual countries in their own right.

Put it this way - if FIFA ever decides that those four teams must combine to form a single UK team, Alex Salmond can call the independence referendum the next day and win it hands down. There's not a hope in hell of the majority of the Tartan Army supporting a UK team dominated by under-achieving prima-donnas from the England team.

we all know that the english football team and fa's arrogance is the reason why the international community dont like them. it goes a long way towards making the relations between scottish and english football a little more hostile than the rugby too. the situation with fifa needed highlighting but not in the way england did it. even in a fair process it is not a given that england would have won!! but even we the scots, welsh and northern irish have no right to be in any greater position of influence than any other countries! frankly i think brazil, italy, germany argentina etc have alot more right to have a say.

with respect to a team GB. i can't imagine just how arrogant that might be!

@16 Douglas Daniel
.........................
Fifa cant , neither at the moment or in the future , as long as all 4 nations remain a member of UEFA/FIFA if one was to pull out over , lets say an election issue (lol) , and then tried to rejoin , this would be a problem . UEFA rules state since 2001 that a nation has to be a sovereign state recognised by the UN ( like the rules on the quiz show Pointless) , so lets pick a random nation , ohh England pulled out they could not rejoin UEFA without the joining of all 4 FA's and leagues in some form .
But they could join the AFC or CONCACAF which doesnt have such rules and play Canada, T&T , Mexico or China , Macau (china) and Hong Kong (china).
That might make you smile this morning .

#18
Now that is an interesting point.

FIFA needs to reform no doubt - possible along the lines of the IOC and an end to the block voting system that leads to problems (though I think they voted through a 1-member 1-vote proposal yesterday).

The problem for Englnad has been that their approach cannot be separated from their hubris over the failed WC bid. I think Scotland is safe enough Jim. Loved the description by Jim Boyce of NI of the English FA being perceived as 'arrogant'. Not a shock to anyone outside England is it? Will Blatter take revenge? Oh yes he will. Will England go it alone? Not in a million years which will be when FIFA will next consider them for the WC.

All the associations in the UK need a clean sweep. Maybe it's time we lost our privileges of having four associations.

I hope they do make one UK or GB team - they'd still be rubbish and it would open the door for Celtic to leave the sad little world of the SFA/SPL. Bring it on FIFA.

Whole thing is a storm in a teacup - 12 or 24 months from now nothing will have changed so long as the current voting system persists at Fifa and the hundreds of small nations who benefit from Blatter's benign regime call the shots. Anyone who observed the mad blatter's tea-party yesterday when he addressed the sensitive issue of diversity (gender - which was raised in the last blog) by playing to the assembled masses and asking 'would you like a woman on the executive' with as much conviction as he could muster. It was as authentic as asking if they wanted hob-nobs with afternoon tea.

So no it wont threaten Scotland or anyone else. The powers at be cant wait to get back to sleepy hollow.

I have a feeling that "doing away with" Scotland (or the other 3 nations) would mean it might be quite difficult for FIFA or UEFA to host any tournaments without massive disruption from vengeful Scots, English, Welsh and Irish.
So long as UEFA needs all it's votes, then we'll see the Home nations (as well as Faroes, San Marino etc) under no threat.

How about



Some good ideas for actually DOING something

IFAB isn't FIFA's to change, it is a partnership.

Jim,

A good question and one that people would do well to pay heed to and not simply take membership of FIFA for granted.

I suspect however that if FIFA were to act against the home nations it is far more likely to take the form of a breech of statute by one of them.

I mean – why should any FIFA member bother exposing themselves to risk on their part by being seen as the orchestrator of such a move and the undoubted effect it would have on their future chances of hosting major international tournaments when, given enough rope, lack of unity within any of the home nations affairs of governance, simply plays into FIFA hands and could see them easly hanged.

We are at far greater risk in my opinion, of failing to comply with FIFA statutes from the representative question-mark hanging over the three bodies hat govern our game. It would be easy for FIFA to attack the home nations position by a targeted campaign on the SFA if it was felt that the SFA’s position could no longer be regarded viable as ‘the’ governing body, given the level of involvement and control of the SPL and SFL to a lesser degree.

This particular scenario is covered specifically be the FIFA statutes and is particularly topical given today’s happenings within the corridors of power on the 6th floor.

If there is any real change it will be a first, so why should FIFA be any different?

It would make another interesting blog, should you choose to cover it.

I think we should have a UK national team, with a cap of five players from any one country making the starting line up, alongside a British league that feeds down to a localised, pyramid set up at lower level.

That's the price of Democracy for you, 1 man (1 country) 1 vote (1 team). There is no justification for the 4 Associations in the UK to have so much power over the rest of the Worlds Footballing laws anyway, the people empowered to rule on the laws should come from a number of countries from around the globe and should be elected.

Whilst the English and Scottish FA's shout about corruption in FIFA because of the voting outcome over the World Cup they themselves have never raised the issue of corrupt the system is that allows them so much power over the rules of the game. Football is a World Sport and does not belong to any single country and therefore no country should have a privileged right to sit in power, ALL positions within ALL committee's of FIFA and UEFA should be elected using the 1 man 1 vote system.

The US is made up of 52 states so why can they not put forward 52 teams and have 52 representatives ? That is what is happening for the UK. The same Laws have to apply to all and if the UK through the English and Scots FA's want FIFA to look at the voting system for the World Cup and election of officers then they have to expect that FIFA looks again at the Laws allowing the participation of teams and those privileged (Undemocratic) positions held by the UK countries.

last time i checked the USA had only 50 states hence the 50 stars on their flag, the UK being a "united" kingdom of two sovereign nations a principality and debatedly an occupied territory or an extension of england which does not equate to any federal system i have ever heard of none the less fifa is as corrupt as any other "democratic" institution which has no incentive to represent the people who are the life blood of our game!

Sticking to football rather than any contentious or controversial political claims, it surely is unfair and archaic that the four UK footballing nations hold such privileged positions on the International Board. I'm sure the vast majority of Scotland fans would be willing for that to be changed so long as the independent status of the national team was maintained.

no way we can lose the scottish team. the english/welsh/n irish fans will feel the same. we're just going to have to grit our teeth and be nice to fifa

i will just pick up on the one major flaw and inaccuracy in this article:

"the head of Fifa might also wonder why one country, the UK, is allowed to have four individual teams attempting to qualify for the World Cup."

The United Kingdom is not a country, it is a state. A state is a political entity, a country is not. The state that is the United Kingdom is made up of four individual countries.

I am not just pointing this flaw out for the sake of it either. The fact is the UK and it's constituent countries are not in a unique position as this article suggests. Here is another example; The People's Republic of China is a political state. From this state two countries compete in international football; China and Hong Kong.

Then there is the anomaly that is Palestine, a country competing in international football, but part of no political state. Which is important as the implication of the quoted section is that one political state ought to have one international football team. Thus, if the logic of the article's argument is followed through not only will Fifa have to get rid of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland then they must also disband China, Hong Kong and Palestine. That is 7 teams wiped out right away. Does anyone really think this is ever going to happen? You can then add to that Puerto Rico and the USA, so now it's 9 teams. These are just some examples off the top of my head, so I'm fairly confident other examples could be found with a little research.

The point is if Fifa did attempt such a move they would be opening a geopolitical pandora's box. Thus, I would suggest it is obvious this will not happen and suggestions otherwise look like journalistic sensationalism.

@28.At 09:32 4th Jun 2011, Pasty wrote:
.........................................................
USA has 50 states , 5 dependent territories and one administritive area , not 52 states .

Please read ;- 18.At 10:32 2nd Jun 2011, murry1975 wrote:
and ;- 32.At 20:06 4th Jun 2011, Koba wrote:
for more definitions of countries/nations/states/soveveirgn entities.
4 countries 4 votes .

34 posts eh - obviously the public care about this one then

plenty of tumbleweeds around here!!

let's face it Scotland, no-one cares

I just dont get all this talk about home nations loosing their indepenant football status.

Why would FIFA want to do this? All the home nations add value to world football. England with its underachievement and over-hype, Scotland with its great supporters, Wales with its great trips to the Millenium Stadium and Northern Ireland are always good for some real surprise upsets.

What benefit would it bring FIFA, or the associations, the fans or football shut down the home nations?

There is not benefit what so ever. It will never happen so journalists and the FA's should really stop giving this subject air time.

Let this be the last post on the subject, unless someone wants to agree with me!