FIFA Has It Backwards ...

Referee who missed Luis Suárez bite gets Brazil v Germany semi-final

The referee who failed to see Luis Suárez bite an opponent has been picked to officiate Brazil’s World Cup semi-final against Germany.

Fifa says on its website that Marco Rodríguez of Mexico will referee the match in Belo Horizonte on Tuesday.

Rodríguez has handled two World Cup matches – Uruguay’s 1-0 win against Italy on 24 June and Belgium’s 2-1 defeat of Algeria. It is his third World Cup finals and the first time he has refereed a game in the knock-out stages. ...

See the whole story here, from The Guardian.

Kicking Back Comments: I'll say honestly, I think had a better tournament to date than Marco. While both are supremely qualified, I think the edge goes to Mark on this one.

Being a 4th official is no small matter to say the least, and being chosen is an honor ... one which he will do us proud with.

DENMARK WINS THE WORLD CUP!! ... kinda

Danish teen wins FIFA Interactive World Cup by outplaying almost two million entrants in FIFA 14 PlayStation battle

While his nation did not make it to the real World Cup, 18-year-old August Rosenmeier did his bit for Danish pride by beating England’s David Bytheway 3-1 on Thursday to win the FIFA Interactive World Cup (FIWC). Rosenmeier, who said he 'trains' four to six hours a day, won $20,000.

RIO DE JANEIRO (AP) — A Danish teenager has claimed the virtual World Cup by beating his English rival in the final of the online Playstation gaming competition, overcoming a field of almost two million entrants.

While his nation did not make it to the real World Cup, 18-year-old August Rosenmeier did his bit for Danish pride by beating England’s David Bytheway 3-1 on Thursday to win the FIFA Interactive World Cup (FIWC). ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of the NY Daily News.

Kicking Back Comments: Might have well been the real World Cup ... Football starts, prize money, glory ... I have to believe this young man feels the same way.

FIFA meets Barry Manilow

For those who may not understand the reference (I am showing my age) please go here for the video.

It is in reference to some recent news out of Brazil where FIFA has been implicated in a ticket scalping operation apparently run out of the FIFA headquarters and hotel ... wait for it ... the Copacabana.

You can't make this stuff up folks.

The Guardian provided this gem at, World Cup 2014: Fifa official linked to $100m ticket scandal – police.

Aside from the silly song reference, and my knee jerk reaction of "who didn't think there was scalping going on?", was the ultra covert, black ops code name the Brazilian PD had for their sting ...

Operation Jules Rimet.

Wow ... who would have ever guessed.

It would need to be something way more Tom Clancy, like "Operation Blue Balls" in reference to the FIFA logo, or maybe "Operation Swiss Cheese" referring to FIFA's origin.

Then again maybe I am overthinking a bunch of FIFA suits using a middle man to sell tickets at 8x their face value and finding another way to screw the people of Brazil.

FIFA of course when faced with this news came up with a stunning rebuttal ...

"Maybe it's not from FIFA ..."

Again, you can't make this stuff up folks.

There is still a US team in the World Cup (Hat tip @mtn335)

After a full couple of days of what I would call US successes (Mark Geiger and team, and the USMNT) I still believe that our US refereeing team is still very much in the tournament.

While there has been some criticism (First time criticizing a referee eh Keshi? That's believable.) of Mark and teams' performance during the FRA v. NGA match, largely surrounding the caution Mark issued ... as opposed to a send off as many would have liked ... I think the call was perfect.

"But Pete!", folks are asking me, "how can that be given the video we saw." ... and the still immediately below?

Image courtesy of ESPN

My answer is three fold.

1. Matuidi was not "headhunting" or with any malice, or more appropriately, overly carless, reckless, or in a disproportionately forceful way went after Onazi that would merit a send off for Serious Foul Play. It was a foul, clearly. It was a caution, certainly. No more. Matuidi was genuinely remorseful after the tackle ... and not a "I just got caught" remorse. It was a real, "crap that was not what I intended" remorse. (Hold those "that does not matter" thoughts)
2. Mark was Johnny on the Spot and was clear about the caution. It was not a "lets wait and see." He booked him instantly ... and all accepted the decision inside the field.
3. A send off I believe would have likely ruined a fabulous match. It would have taken a match almost perfectly in balance (see stats below) and would have required 35'+ of 10 v. 11 play, completely disrupting the nice flow this match had to it.

Image courtesy of Google

This one comes down to the very real issue faced by referees at the World Cup (in particular). Balance is king. FIFA wants to see every team afforded every opportunity to decide matches on their own without undue interference from the referee.

Think about some of the "soft" penalties we saw earlier in the tournament and late penalty calls that resulted in dramatic finishes (I'm not blaming referees for bad behavior on a players part) ... it threw these matches out of "balance" and we did not see these referees or ARs again.

Let's go back to ... if they did it, the player should pay for it ...

Well, I hate to say this, but not at this level, or even at a high level professional match. Lets face it folks, stars are protected and they should be ... also frankly ... at this level it is more about getting a fair shake than what the laws say.

It's the biggest of the big boy games and if you look at the video or watched the match, the players accepted the decision and got on with it. If they did not, there would have been much more for Mark to deal with.

So based on this (some may ask) if the score was already 2-0, would this have been a send off?

My answer is that I'd be willing to bet it would have.

On the surface this may seem dramatically unjust, and even bias to a degree that players who commit wrong acts may get to stay for virtue of the situation.

It is however exactly what I am saying. Not only do different matches (as a whole) but also different points in a match require different management.

For me, at that time, in that match, with those teams in that tournament, a caution was Mark's only real option to keep that match where it was. With that caution, he maintained balance ... which is ultimately what referees at that level are judged for.

Short of a capricious decision by FIFA, I believe we will see Mark and team one more time this World Cup. I don't think it will be the final (I think this goes to Irmatov) and honestly the quarter finals based on the team stack up may be unlikely. (FRA-GER, no as GER was in USA group and they just did FRA; BRA-COL, most likely but a longshot with the host nation, likely a UEFA referee; ARG-BEL, no as BEL eliminated the US; NED-CRC, no as CRC is in CONCACAF)

A semi-final would be a dream assignment and a platinum star for the US team.

In any case, I believe the whole team is in the running with their excellent work. While we may not see them again ... Mark at 39 is ripe for the next World Cup in 2018 with some amazing experience under his belt.

We'll see ... but be assured I am pulling for our remaining US team.

Making more of a believer out of a fool

In looking out over our local expanse to see who has actually picked up on the fact that Mark Geiger is doing the US refereeing core proud I found "Mark Geiger flips the Geiger Counter" from The Philly Soccer Page.

It's not a bad read in general actually. It has pretty good, intelligent, largely articulate articles on The Game. Then again, it serves as a pretty good platform to bash referees as well.

In the article Earl Gardner starts off great, giving credit where credit is due in citing several sources and agreeing that Mark is knocking it out of the park so far in Brazil as our (as in yours too Earl) US referee representative. So much so that he even is considering at least a historical revision of the "Geiger Counter" which is a less than clever way to beat the hell out of Mark. Here is the comment from the article:

"You see, Mark Geiger has been the standard of poor or overzealous officiating in Major League Soccer for three years here at The Philly Soccer Page."

Nice huh?

So while Earl passes kudos to Mark for a job well done, his conclusions about how that has occurred shows what a true neophyte he is to the art of refereeing.

In essence he states that Mark's style is to let the match go until he needs to come roaring in to save it with some dramatic decision. Specifically from the article:

"Accept that this is the league’s culture and call a looser game, stepping in only when things threaten to get out of hand."

He continues by saying that this style fits International play at the World Cup and that Mark essentially got lucky that players are working with him because that's the only way he knows how to control a match.

Foolishness of that assertion aside that Mark (or any referee for that matter) does not try and at times successfully make adjustments to their decision types at a match or a tournament, it also shows a lack of knowledge, not only by the fact that referees for this tournament have been working international matches for months but also have been through lengthy training about how they want matches decided at this World Cup.

It also precludes the fact that adjustments by (US) FIFA referees going from MLS to Olympics to CONCACAF qualifiers to World Cup and up and down and all around happen all the time and frankly are really freaking hard. Somehow Mark has been successful at all of these ... why?

Because he successfully adjusts to the level he is refereeing. A concept that Earl dismisses outright in Mark's ability to "get it right" at the World Cup.

Do you wonder why many FIFA on a World Cup referees over here don't generally do regular league matches? Its to keep them dialed in to what they need to focus on, which is the international game.

Earl has no concept of this reality.

While he pays platitudes in "flipping the Geiger Counter" which is now miraculously to him a measure of how good a referee is, not how bad, the sentiment of the article falls flat, just as platitudes do.

So while Earl believes that Mark simply found gold under a rock that he stepped on, anyone with even a scintilla of soccer knowledge knows better.

It was at least a half hearted effort by Earl to give a referee some credit.

Credit where credit is due indeed.

He bites me ... He bites me not

So for folks looking on at ITA v. URU we were treated to a pretty good match, and a gruesome incident in the 79' when Uruguay's Luis Suarez appears to bite Italian defender Giorgio Chiellini.

Take a look here for video and HD stills which may make the case.

Now I am not going to take up the did he or did he not bite Chiellini. My question is, if the referee did not see the incident with his very own eyes, can he take action on it? After all Chiellini and most of the Italian team ran over to the referee showing him what appeared to be a bite mark on his shoulder.

My answer to the question is a resounding YES! A referee can, and frankly should, take action even absent directly witnessing an incident.

Now be careful ... do ends justify the means? So in other words if a referee misses a tackle, and a player winds up with a broken leg, should they get sent off?

My answer here is a resounding NO! Just because a "bad thing" has occurred, does not automatically give rise to punitive action by the referee, there has to be causation, not just correlation.

That difference is stark. As an example, shark attacks on humans track with ice cream sales at the beaches that the attacks occur at. Causation? So are we saying that ice cream sales at  a beach cause shark attacks? Absolutely not, there is simply a correlation between the two.

(Please note the irony as sharks attack by biting)

Same inside the field ...

If a situation occurs that you as a referee do not witness, and assuming that none of the assistants saw it, 4th official (we know that guy!) and you can't somehow glean the information from (for example) the jumbotron in that small space in time when you need to make a decision, then you need to ask causation or correlation.

In our case, bite marks in the back of a player and the offending player holding his mouth is strongly causal ... but is it enough?

Referee Marco Antonio Rodriguez (MEX) did not think so, but I may disagree with that outcome.

Don't get me wrong, to turn around and send Suarez off at that point would take big brass ones, and likely (and wrongly) end the tournament for Rodriguez ... but is it the right thing to do for The Game.

Now, if FIFA fails to take any action, or any meaningful action (like fine Suarez) then shame on FIFA and it bolsters my thoughts to send him off and let FIFA sort out the protests.

In much the same way we would likely send off a player in a Sunday league (for their own safety) if they perpetrated such an offense, the same should hold here.

Of course that is not really true as the laws of physics change at this tournament ... but something so vile to the game should not be an exception.

By the way ... thoughts on a call here? Rodriguez knew something was up enough to stop play for something that happened behind the play ... so we have a free kick, likely direct. What about the send off (if there were one)?

Yes, Violent Conduct, NOT Serious Foul Play as it occurred away from the ball.

I'll update on punishment from FIFA, but as of now they have started an investigation, focusing primarily on the referees report (ya think those need to be well written?).

They do however have the option of (2) year or (24) International Match ban if they have sufficient evidence, beginning with the referees report. Check out Article 19 from the FIFA Disciplinary Code to see that little nugget.

From there, it will be interesting to see if they choose to use video evidence from the (34) cameras watching the match ... and if they want to ban one of their stars from their tournament.

Prepare for 120'+

Today re-taught many of us a necessary lesson ... which is you need to referee (or play) for 120'+ minuets.

During the Portugal v. USA match we saw two of the three teams remember this lesson. Portugal, who scored a great goal in the 95' and the refereeing team, who by my standards did an excellent job. Our USA team however, lost heir minds in the 95' and lapsed completely, allowing an equalizer that saw their Round of 16 berth quashed ... for now.

Some may ask me to give USA a break given their (truly) excellent play and come back from 1-0 to truly dominate 90' of the 95' of the match.

I give them the same break any referee would get if they stopped refereeing the last 5' of the match ... none at all.

If you set foot inside the pitch, be ready for the full measure. That means 90' plus extra time, overtime, and penalties.

Train and prepare for 120'+.

It may cost you a match one day.

It may cost Team USA an early exit out of this World Cup today.

Even in Legos it was a soft penalty

See it here, from The Guardian.

I ham happy however Brick by Brick is back!!

Interesting ... and Misguided

World Cup Mania: Figuring Out FIFA, Soccer & Tax

We are in full World Cup mode at my house. My kids are huge soccer fans (you may know this if you’re a regular reader) and they’ve been counting down to the first game (Brazil beat Croatia) for months. They’ve made posters and charts and insisted on buying souvenirs, including a stuffed version of the Fuleco, the armadillo who serves as the current World Cup mascot.

And predictably, they have peppered me with questions, mostly about FIFA since the initials appear on everything from Fuleco to the game balls. What is it? Who runs it? And their favorite question: who gets to keep all of that money? ...

See the whole article here, courtesy of Forbes.

Kicking Back Comments: While written for a 5th grader ... "FIFA is also known for handing out some pretty important awards. " ... there are a couple of nuggets in there (in particular financials) worth looking at ... but little else.

Yes Ms. Erb, FIFA is doing exactly what it said it would ... robbing some of the poorest people in the world absolutely blind.

How The 2014 FIFA World Cup Became The Worse Publicity Stunt In History

Back in 2007, when Brazil was awarded the right to host the 2014 FIFA World Cup, the South American nation was experiencing its best economic period in decades. That year Brazil’s economy expanded by 4.5%, thanks to capital flowing into the country from foreign investors. Inflation was under control and the currency strong. And the gap between the rich and the poor finally seemed to be shrinking a bit. The country of the future was, at last, catching up with its vast potential.

Fast-forward to May 2014: consumer confidence has plummeted, and the economy contracted in consecutive quarters (from Q4 2013 to Q1 2014) for the first time since the depths of the 2008-09 global financial crisis, and about two weeks prior to hosting the biggest single-event sporting extravaganza on earth, Brazil is in the midst of a degree of chaos that in no way resembles the image of the country that was sold by its leaders to the world seven years ago. ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of Forbes.

Kicking Back Comments: A good article that details how political ambitions coupled with a country that may not quite have the infrastructure to pull off something of a World Cup scale may be bad for the host ... and horrible for FIFA.

Are you Ready for Some World Cup?

Boobs, FIFA "Mafia," and a Cool Journalist

So I was looking at how the protests are staring to pick up again in Brazil as we close in on starting FIFA 2014 ... and it does not look pretty.

Nor should it honestly as billions (with a "b") pour into the country and almost none will be seen by its citizens.

In kicking around the inter-web-super-highway, I came across  Topless FEMEN protesters storm German football TV show, and it piqued my interest on many levels.

First, was certainly the nature of the protest to storm onto a live TV set half naked. How do you hide that, and why did the very stylishly dressed bodyguards take so long in getting to the stage?

Second, while the visual aspect of the protest was great, their vocal message, "Boycott FIFA Mafia" was somewhat dull and just repeating it over and over did nothing for me. I don't think they expected to get that far.

Third, was the very cool host that instead of just whisking these folks away, he actually stopped and ask one of them what they were protesting ... and they answered candidly and politely. It was actually quite refreshing.

Finally, was the fact that we are already seeing organized protests over the Qatar decision. While I don't expect ANY in country, I believe we will continue to see the same outside of Qatar and Russia in the days to come protesting what FIFA is doing to the workers of these countries.

You can bet these protesters will be looking at Brazil to see just how far FIFA will let them go.

Congrats to US Referees Geiger, Hurd, and Boria

Referee trios and support duos appointed for 2014 FIFA World Cup

The FIFA Referees Committee, meeting in Zurich yesterday (14 January 2014) under the chairmanship of Jim Boyce (Northern Ireland), has appointed 25 referee trios and eight support duos representing 43 different countries for the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™.

FIFA has implemented a comprehensive programme to ensure that the referees for its flagship competition are in peak condition come 12 June. ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of Fifa.com.

Kicking Back Comments: While not unexpected, it is always welcomed to see a US face in a World Cup. Hearty congratulation to Mark, Mark, and Eric.

This is an accomplishment that so few will ever have. Enjoy the fruits of your hard work.

To look at the full list of referees going to Brazil is not so shocking both in geographic location, and by name. The full list of referees and alternates can be seen here (.pdf).

Much Better FIFA

FIFA bans Croatian defender Josip Simunic for 10 matches, including Brazil's World Cup, after Nazi chant

Australian-born Croatia defender Josip Simunic will miss the World Cup after being banned for 10 matches by FIFA for his pro-Nazi chants that marred his country's play-off victory over Iceland last month.

Football's world governing body confirmed on Monday that Simunic's ban will start at the World Cup in Brazil, and that he will also be banned from entering the stadium for any of his country's matches. ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of The Age.

Kicking Back Comments: I think FIFA got this one right honestly. What have I been saying about being draconian? From the article:

"Croatia's Football Federation said it was ''shocked'' over FIFA's ''draconian sanction'', warning the move could mean the end of Simunic's career in the national squad."

The CFA is right, it is draconian ... and should be. Yes, it may end this player's career, but will serve as a warning for others to not cross "that" line.

With a player missing the World Cup due to their comments, do we think that others will be so stupid as to try similar? If so, FIFA must now hold the line and deal with each as sternly.

I am sad to say, I think it is the only way.

MLS Cup is over ... Was it the right referee?

The 3rd Yellow - Why Isn't Mark Geiger Refereeing MLS Cup 2013?

Before I get too far into this, I want to make one thing very clear. This is not an article meant to disrespect the officiating crew that was selected for Sporting Kansas City-Real Salt Lake in the 2013 MLS Cup Final this Saturday from Sporting Park.

Hilario Grajeda is also a solid referee, was in the center for the MLS All Star game vs. Roma, and was recently named the MLS Official of the Year, something that he deserved throughout the 2013 MLS season. Ismail Elfath was the runner up for that award (Baldomero Toledo was third), and I like Elfath as well, despite my opinion of his performance in the second leg of the Revs playoff series vs. SKC. Elfath is 31 years old, and has a pretty impressive resume for a referee who made his pro debut in 2009 in the NASL. ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of SB Nation.

Kicking Back Comments: First let me say that the crew on Saturday did a great job. So as Jake had stated, the question is not a reflection on them.

There are a couple of points I think he misses on why not Geiger?

I think he touches on the over-exposure point slightly, but not well enough. Over exposure is killer, and can lead to just too much familiarity between teams and a referee. This can reach a fever pitch by the time something as critical as a MLS Cup rolls around.

Second, as was stated, Mark and crew are at the Club World Cup. Lets face it folks this one cuts both ways in the same direction. As a referee on the World Cup "short list" there are matches you have to do, and matches you have to avoid.

There is little doubt in my head that other World Cup prospects were invited by Brian Hall for this tournament, and their absence would mean a death knell to any thought of actually going to a World Cup. Also, lets say that the games did not meet on the calendar and Mark was available ... would it have been a good idea for him to referee the MLS Cup final? I would hope that some folks put some thought into that as a mistake on that match ... which, I'm sorry folks ... does not hold a candle to international play, or even many higher level leagues IMHO ... could kill an opportunity to go to a World Cup as well.

Listen, I'm a fan of Mark just like the author, but, I also recognize that missing a well placed match is not such a bad thing, and in fact may be totally intentional, calendar aside. 

It's all about the pot

World Cup: FIFA reveals pots plan for Friday's tournament draw

FIFA has announced the allocation of pots for Friday's World Cup draw, with England, as expected, unseeded for the tournament in Brazil.

The host nation will join the top seven teams in world football, according to FIFA's official rankings as of October, in Pot 1.

The two unseeded South American sides will join the five African qualifiers in Pot 2, with teams from the Asia, Oceania and CONCACAF regions making up Pot 3. ...

See the whole article here, courtesy of Sky Sports.

Kicking Back Comments: Let the games begin ...

Another Example of FIFA Condoning Racism?

FIFA Wants Tougher Actions Against Racism In Soccer, But Reportedly Rejects Black Couple In Brazil

This week, FIFA president Sepp Blatter said he was “sickened” to hear supporters of Spanish soccer club Real Betis racially abuse their own player. TV footage recently released shows Betis fans appearing to make racist gestures and noises at defender Paulo, a Brazilian player who is black, as he left the field after a loss to city rival Sevilla.

On his official Twitter account, Blatter publicly condemned the incident and stated that it was “nonsense to fight racism with fines,” a practice that has long been used by FIFA. “This has to be tackled by ALL competition organizers,” he added. ...

See the whole article here, courtesy of Forbes.

Kicking Back Comments: What's funny of course is in the update at the bottom of the article, FIFA is quick, very quick, to blame the organizer of the event, and shed FIFA of any responsibility whatsoever.

This of course is laughable that FIFA ceded any control, but is a far cry from racism either.

There is an interesting question lurking around here though ... Should FIFA have intentionally chosen the couple of African descent to show "FIFA is not racist?"

Isn't that racism defined, to prejudice a decision based on race? (Some call this reverse racism, to me it is just racism)

FIFA is honestly in a no win situation here, where if they go out of their way to accommodate the couple of African descent, they are pandering. If they accommodate the couple of European descent, they are racist.

So where do you go with that?

Maybe you do give up complete control to an independent selection committee, state same publicly before hand, and go from there. Or possibly be public about the selection criteria, such as independent polls or popularity scores ... whatever you use ... just be objective and public ...

FIFA by opting for any type of "quota" system, as the article describes Brazil doing, may do more harm than good.

For US jurisprudence on the topic take a look at Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).

This one is a lot harder than the article gives it credit for. What is NOT hard however is how FIFA should respond to actual racism, a video if which is linked to the article. As I have said in the past ... be draconian. Don't just fine people who have the money ... or if you do, make it really hurt.

Tragedy Strikes 2014 World Cup

Two die in Brazil World Cup stadium accident

Two people have died in an accident at Sao Paulo's stadium, which is due to host the opening ceremony of the 2014 World Cup finals, police say.

A senior local fire official said crews were called to the Arena Corinthians after reports of a collapsed crane.

It fell on top of a metal structure, destroying part of a facade.

The arena was due to be completed at the end of December to meet a Fifa deadline. Brazil has admitted it is struggling to have all 12 venues ready. ...

See the whole story here, from the BBC.

Kicking Back Comments: While I have absolutely no evidence, it is my personal feeling that pressure from FIFA, and the Brazilian government themselves was part of the cause of this catastrophe that took the lives of (2) men. It would not be the first time for such an event. Another notable one can be found here.

Our deepest sympathies to the families of those killed.

Just Doing My Job

It's Every Fan's Job to Police FIFA and the Olympics Committee

Neither World Cup nor Olympics authorities seem to mind Qatar's and Russia's human rights violations, so it's up to consumers, players, and sponsors to take action themselves.

Ever since FIFA, the global soccer governing body/alleged cesspool of corruption, appointed Qatar the host nation for the 2022 World Cup, the association has repeatedly found itself on the defensive: It has vociferously rejected widespread allegations of vote-buying by the Middle Eastern nation, and it has turned a blind eye to criticism of Qatar's antediluvian views on homosexuality. Most recently, the country revealed its planned "gay test" for players and fans during the World Cup, which reportedly could include a forced penile plethysmography test or forced anal examinations. But even more damning news came November 17, when Amnesty International released a report that's sobering, by any measure: The 2022 World Cup venue, it reveals, is being built with slave labor. ...

See the whole story here, from the Atlantic.

Kicking Back Comments: There are times when I agree with Mr. Simpson, and times that I don't. But boy howdy I am with him here ... and not.

I am in firm agreement that FIFA and to a degree the IOC are entities to make money ... and I think that's fine personally. Let's face it, sport is business and folks have been making a buck on it for years, nothing wrong with that given the amount of work that goes into managing, hosting, and promoting such an event.

Now, where I get off the bus is when an organization, like FIFA, "For the good of the game" knowingly engage in activity, or condone activity they are aware of that is illegal, immoral, or otherwise repugnant to the values they espouse for their own personal benefit.

I was shocked ... honestly ... when the link to the above article spoke of a new "gay test" for players and fans for the 2022 World Cup coming into Qatar. FIFA knows this, yet has not condemned it in its most basic terms despite receiving pressure, and having an ability to "implement their own law."

After all, this behavior is in direct conflict with FIFA Statute, Article 3 which states in whole:

"Discrimination of any kind against a country, private person or group of people on account of ethnic origin, gender, language, religion, politics or any other reason is strictly prohibited and punishable by suspension or expulsion."

Seems pretty clear to me FIFA should not engage or at least sanction Qatar for such ... or as they have done in World Cups past, suspend sovereign law.

For regular readers, some may cry FOUL! as I am suggesting FIFA suspend the sovereign law of Qatar, as they are able to do, to prevent any such abuses. I suggested the same for the 2014 World Cup when it came to the "Great Beer Row" for FIFA leave the people of Brazil to make their own laws without impediment by FIFA to appease a sponsor.

So why the reversal on my part ... or at least the clear inconsistency?

Because there is a whopping difference between suspending a law to appease a sponsor and curtail a legitimate safety concern (of drunk fan(atics)), and suspending a law to prevent discrimination against another human when harm may come to them due to that law.

Yes, I am playing the hypocrite again ... although at times I would prefer to be seen as debating the Prime Directive.

In all events, for us common folks to rail against FIFA and the IOC for such is a reasonable activity to remind them they can't suspend their principles to make a buck, and even worse, as in the case of FIFA, pretend to be doing what is right.

This constant drumming, I would hope, get the notice of the World Cup sponsors. While they made some noise back in 2011 during the claims of corruption, led by Adidas, it also seems the buck is trumping as that same company signed a partnership with FIFA until 2030.

It makes me wonder ... what is it going to take ...

Standing Room Only?

Court battle could delay delivery of WCup stadium

SAO PAULO (AP) -- Brazil risks missing the deadline for the delivery of its World Cup stadiums because of a court battle over the supplier of seats for Arena Pantanal in Cuiaba.

FIFA wants all 12 stadiums completed by December, but Arena Pantanal may not be ready because of the legal dispute involving two companies.

One of the companies has asked a judge to void the bidding process that awarded its rival the right to provide the seats, which are already being installed. If the judge accepts the request, work at the 44,000-seat stadium in the wetlands may have to be halted with less than two months left before the FIFA deadline. ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of The Sacramento Bee.

Kicking Back Comments: Why in the 11th hour is it now a surprise? Did the supplier (who has supplied seats before to a WC venue) think that something had changed. FIFA I am certain has been clear about the dates it wanted these ready (as unrealistic as they may have been).

Then again, none of that really matters as seats will appear magically at the very last minute and be installed by the attorney working the matter himself if I read the article somewhat tongue in cheek.

After all, it has to get done, because there is no Plan B:
"Despite saying it will not accept delays in the remaining six World Cup stadiums under construction, FIFA Secretary General Jerome Valcke has said there is no Plan B regarding the venues and none will be replaced or excluded. He said changes can't be made now because tickets have already been sold."

Great planning guys ... well done.