Face it guys, FIFA hates us.

[SaintsSeptember]

I'm actually referring to within the world of soccer itself: the people that follow the game - they all accept the diving, the feigning, the time wasting, handing out silverware with pens, and the fact that the game is as corrupt as all hell - they all accept it - it's bizarre.

I tend to think there are certain elements of the soccer watching crowd who get off on the politics of it all and pride themselves of the knowlege of such.

( I can understand it to an extent, I used to watch Formula one, when there were many different engines/technical aspects to the sport, which I found as interesting as the racing / LOL at stupid punters who didn't think Coulthard would slow down and let his teammate win. ).

It's a bit of an arrogant stance for FIFA to take such a situation for granted though, as it is by its very nature frustrating for the casual observer to watch, and it doesn't help the sport appeal to new audiences.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Refs have always favoured stronger soccer nations.

Everyone knows it.

Everyone accepts it.

Thought so. Caught out in a continued blatant lie and you just continue to spout such bullshit. I guess last night was another example of the more powerful nations being favoured? Why did a very tight offside call go against Italy for what would've been the equaliser? Surely the Italians won't be happy if corruption can't even get an important 50-50 decision to go their way?

 

[enosis7]

Thought so. Caught out in a continued blatant lie and you just continue to spout such bullshit. I guess last night was another example of the more powerful nations being favoured? Why did a very tight offside call go against Italy for what would've been the equaliser? Surely the Italians won't be happy if corruption can't even get an important 50-50 decision to go their way?

that was CLEARLY offside. Not a 50/50 call by any stretch.

 

[Barkly St End]

Thought so. Caught out in a continued blatant lie and you just continue to spout such bullshit. I guess last night was another example of the more powerful nations being favoured? Why did a very tight offside call go against Italy for what would've been the equaliser? Surely the Italians won't be happy if corruption can't even get an important 50-50 decision to go their way?

You don't know too much about the 1978 World Cup I take it?

 

[Footy Smarts]

You don't know too much about the 1978 World Cup I take it?

No I'm not going to claim to be an expert on it. I know certain stuff about it. Are you reffering to Argentina playing its last group game after its rivals so that it knew what result it needed? And allegations of them bribing there opposition so they could win by the margin they needed to progress?

If it's this situation you're pointing out then I don't really see why. I don't recall any insinuation that the refereeing had anything to do with it but rather it was the players themselves (was the opposition goalkeeper of Argentinian decent or something???) that were suspected of corruption. How does this back up your comment that "refs have always favoured stronger nations" when this instance has nothing to do with refereeing? FIFA also changed the format so that this sort of advantage couldn't occur by playing the final group games at the same time. Interestingly the AFL didn't do the same after 2008 when StKilda conveniently beat Essendon by over 100 points to sneak into the top 4 on percentage when they were helped by knowing what needed to be done well beforehand.

If it was a different incident in the 1978 world cup please fill me in on the details.

Anyway surely if "refs always favour stronger soccer nations" then there is bucketloads of evidence in the most recent 8 world cups? Why do you need to go all the way back to 1978 to come up with some evidence of continual corruption of referees?

 

[Barkly St End]

Soccer is a game wide open to corruption, and has been found out to be wide open to corruption all over the world.

Italy was riddled with corruption in the year it last won the WC!!

Did anyone bat an eyelid? No!!

 

[Footy Smarts]

that was CLEARLY offside. Not a 50/50 call by any stretch.

Really? Clearly offside? You understand that if the players are level then it's onside?

This is how the offside was reported in various media outlets:

Eurosport: "Italy thought they were on level terms when Quagliarella stabbed home a cross from the left but the flag was up, the Napoli forward possibly a hair's width in front of the last defender."

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/24062010/58/world-cup-2010-holders-italy-crash.html

Telegraph: "There will be a few Italians who will still be whining today about the idea that an equaliser for Quagliarella, the one spark of light among the gloom when he was brought on at half time, was ruled out when Italy were two down but the linesman probably got a hair’s breadth decision right."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo.../7847212/Slovakia-3-Italy-2-match-report.html

Guardian: "Italy thought they had the goal they needed to progress two minutes later, only for Quagliarella to be ruled offside by a matter of centimetres..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jun/24/italy-slovakia-world-cup-match-report

The world game: "Quagliarella thought he had equalised when he turned home a Di Natale cross from the left, but the Napoli man was flagged offside by Darren Cann in the tightest of decisions."

http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/match/report/54795/Slovakia-vs-Italy/

So that's 4 media outlets that have said the decision was a very close one. I'm not claiming the decision was wrong, I think it was just offside, but it is the type of decision that can go either way. Maybe not 50-50 but perhaps 70-30. Surely if there is such blatant corruption in refereeing so that major nations are favoured why would a decision like this have gone Slovakia's way? Is Slovakia actually a footballing powerhouse that has more sway over referees than Italy? Or perhaps did the referee and linesman make a decision to the best of their ability based on what they saw because there isn't the corruption that some here have claimed?

 

[Barkly St End]

Here is a fantastic article on refereeing bias at international level, one of the very best I've ever read.

By the way - it's actually written by a certified FIFA international ref (an American):

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/06/the_reality_of_international_s.html

Some choice bits:

International soccer is an artistic expression painted by referees on a canvas of grass with athletes as brushes.

The referees do not specify any foul when they are called. So "offsides" or "tripping" are never named when they are called by a referee. The referees do not have to provide any clarification apart from where the kick shall proceed from as it re-enters play.

Referees can decide when the game ends. Referees can issue yellow cards and red cards on the basis of pure discretion. Linesmen do not over rule or have independent authority and can be over ruled or ignored on any flag they offer.

...the collision of international politics and sportsmanship is powerful and it leaves far more professional wreckage on the field of play than the American public used to 'instant replay' and the general norms of fair play would expect.

Zero games are played outside the US where the referees are not actively working to undermine, embarrass, and hinder the American team.

Americans would do well to understand the widely disseminated contempt toward them that makes the subjective reign of soccer referees a wildly artistic endeavor designed to communicate the proper subjective political ends. For the majority of international referees, it is unimaginable that Americans would be worthy of equal and fair consideration on the playing field given their conduct in the global sphere. Soccer is for these referees an opportunity to make a lifetime artistic achievement in expressing that widely held pathological sentiment. The Slovenia game was but one more masterpiece in a massive global soccer art gallery sanctioned and built by FIFA.

That last para, in particular, is telling and beautifully written, and it underscores two levels of bias/corruption that I have tried to emphasise:

1. the personal leanings of refs, whatever they might be; and
2. the direct or indirect sanctioning by FIFA for refs to allow these personal leanings to interfere with their officiating of a game.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Soccer is a game wide open to corruption, and has been found out to be wide open to corruption all over the world.

So in other words still nothing to back up your claims. Nothing new there then.

Italy was riddled with corruption in the year it last won the WC!!

Did anyone bat an eyelid? No!!

Sorry is this discussion about Italian soccer or the world cup? No doubt Italian soccer was corrupt but that was uncovered because there was blatant evidence of it. I can tell you there's no way a close decision (like the offside for Italy last night) would've gone against Juventus in those years. The teams were punished for it (they haven't really recovered from it) and hopefully it doesn't happen again, although I'm not naive enough to think that they won't try. You've still given no evidence of refereeing corruption despite claiming it over and over again.

In fact the only "evidence" for refereeing corruption you've given from world cups was a game 32 years ago where the corruption was never proven and the allegations were against the players not the match officials anyway. What a joke!

 

[Footy Smarts]

International soccer is an artistic expression painted by referees on a canvas of grass with athletes as brushes.

The referees do not specify any foul when they are called. So "offsides" or "tripping" are never named when they are called by a referee. The referees do not have to provide any clarification apart from where the kick shall proceed from as it re-enters play.

Referees can decide when the game ends. Referees can issue yellow cards and red cards on the basis of pure discretion. Linesmen do not over rule or have independent authority and can be over ruled or ignored on any flag they offer.

Ok so this part is about the influence that the referee can have on the game. There's no doubt about that. Referees have to make decisions that impact the game greatly. That's just the nature of the game and doesn't in any way constitute, or lead to corruption.

...the collision of international politics and sportsmanship is powerful and it leaves far more professional wreckage on the field of play than the American public used to 'instant replay' and the general norms of fair play would expect.

Zero games are played outside the US where the referees are not actively working to undermine, embarrass, and hinder the American team.

Americans would do well to understand the widely disseminated contempt toward them that makes the subjective reign of soccer referees a wildly artistic endeavor designed to communicate the proper subjective political ends. For the majority of international referees, it is unimaginable that Americans would be worthy of equal and fair consideration on the playing field given their conduct in the global sphere. Soccer is for these referees an opportunity to make a lifetime artistic achievement in expressing that widely held pathological sentiment. The Slovenia game was but one more masterpiece in a massive global soccer art gallery sanctioned and built by FIFA.

This is actually a very interesting claim. However it's very different from what you've been claiming.

The idea here is that, due to international politics, Americans are disliked by much of the world (I don't think there's anything to disagree with here because many of their policies have caused friction). This could then lead to biased refereeing due to personal leanings.

I'm not going to deny that this could possibly happen. A psychologist would be best to say whether these sorts of personal feelings are likely to impair judgement.

Let's for arguments sake take this as true (again I don't know if it is but it may be). Does this constitute corruption or is it merely human nature? It's probably somewhere on the borderline between the 2. Certainly it's not the full blown corruption of bribery, etc. Secondly, how is this due to anything driven by FIFA? How are they supposed to eliminate personal feelings of referees? It's simply impossible. Additionally, due to the low-scoring nature of soccer it's impossible to eliminate instances where referees must make decisions that are important to the outcome of matches. They also have to have referees. Everybody has biases in life so it's impossible to select a referee that couldn't, at least potentially be biased due to their personal feelings.

So although there may be individual bias of referees but that's impossible to eliminate. Also I don't see how this leads to "powerful nations" being favoured. Unless they always play the USA??

It certainly doesn't add up to your agreement with another poster in post 26 that "it's all scripted from the start". I don't see this in any way adds to your previous claim of widespred corruption in refereeing towards the powerful nations.

 

[Barkly St End]

It's all connected.

It doesn't matter whether the bias is coming from geo-political persuasions, or from being influenced by "stars", or from being bribed.

This is the thing that links it all together:

1. Refs have a very broad control over proceedings, everything from the laws of the game, timekeeping right through to meting out severe punishment on the spot with no right of appeal;
2. refs are not accountable for their decision-making (just as the article says); and
3. FIFA allows this lack of accountability and transparency to continue unabatedly.