FIFA

[f321ffc]

 fp.gif what a bloody disgrace FIFA are.
http://talksport.com/football/fifa-opens-proceedings-against-fa-and-sfa-wearing-poppies-161117217495

[St Eve]

You got that right

[e4b]

Bunch of short sighted idiots.Every country should be allowed to pay their respect to fallen heroes in their own way. It is not political or religious it is being a human being.

[toshes mate]

Despite starting disciplinary proceedings against the FA and SFA, FIFA have claimed they never said "poppies are banned" and also claimed they are not prejudging outcomes!!!  The Welsh FA said it couldn't afford a fine or points deduction.   

All in all it seems the recent clear out of FIFA detritus just didn't go far enough. 

[MisfitKid]

  fp.gif x 1,000

[grandad]

I say we resign from this corrupt organization. Do away with Internationals as they disrupt our season. We don´t win any of the competitions. Between the 4 home country´s we could play annually for the Poppy Cup.

[H4usuallysitting]

Why exactly do FIFA exist....other than to line there own pockets

[Fulham Tup North]

 :031:  Disgrace.  But at least FIFA are consistent, They have always been a Disgrace!!  092.gif

[ron]

Blackguards the lot of them. Time servers and yes-men with no sense of decency or honour.

[Carborundum]

I'll reserve my ire for the hopefully unlikely event that they issue a meaningful punishment or censure.  Personally I doubt they will.  All I'll suggest is that the very best organisations find ways to keep people focussed on the fundamentals rather than side-show diversions or internal politics.  Sounds easy, actually blooming hard and that's why we don't live in Utopia.

[YankeeJim]

I think they are businessmen looking for a profit. Anything that might be controversial might get in the way of earning. Witness the hacks who run the NFL. They allowed political statements by Colin Kaepernick who is your typical slow witted athlete who earns far too much money and decides to take a stand against the mistreatment of people of color.  And, by the way, he cares so much that he hasn't ever registered to vote. The NFL is currently having its worst TV rating in ten years. In both cases the leagues insulted fans for no earthly reason. Guess they are tone DEAF.

[Forever Fulham]

FIFA is just protecting its brand, sullied as it may be, for worldwide sponsorships revenue.   We've seen their draconian branding rules imposed on whole cities, entire nations, in past World Cups.  They got laws passed in host countries creating geographic buffer zones against guerilla marketing efforts by advertisers who didn't agree to be extorted by FIFA for huge sponsorship dollars for category exclusivity.   FIFA's position, I think, is that it cannot tolerate any unauthorized 'branding' expressions associated with their sanctioned events, as such activity would devalue  the presumed worth of such sponsorships to the sponsors.  But this is different in the sense that the instant symbol isn't commercial in nature.  Under trademark law, infringement occurs with the likelihood of confusion as to commercial source, nexus, association, affiliation, sponsorship, etc., of the underlying goods or services.  But poppy signage isn't about commercial use.  Rather, it's noncommercial speech.  A call to remember those who lost their lives in defense of their country in past wars.  Hardly commercial in nature.  And thus not trademark infringement under the tarnishment wing of trademark law.  No, this is about not offending current and potential sponsors from countries who might be deemed to take offense at the poppy symbolism.  Like German sponsors who don't want the 'market' for their goods and services to be offended by poppy symbolism.  You and I think that symbolism is universal.  FIFA isn't taking any chances and doesn't want the difficult task of playing arbiter of what's universally acceptable noncommercial symbolism, and what isn't.   We may see the poppy as a memorial to the fallen in any war, for any country, a nod to sacrifice for the greater good.  The ultimate sacrifice.  But maybe a contingent of German fans of the game don't see it that way, see it as politicised, nationalistic, an affront.  So FIFA bans all such expressions on uniforms as breaches of its rules, and ends up antagonising an entire nation with the hope that doing so will keep its image stronger for sponsorship revenue everywhere.  Bizarre snake eats its own head mentality.   Once I start making exceptions, the camel's nose is in the tent.  But all this really does is infuriate whole groups of people, who don't understand brand integrity rules applied in extremis.  There's no doubt FIFA has lost its way, sacrificing common sense to the altar of Sponsorship Revenue.  No changing of the guard will fix that.  FIFA's very life blood is sponsorship revenue.   So it acts only to protect that interest. 

[Holders]

I don't see it as a political symbol, nor a nationalistic one - I remember the innocent people on both sides who lost their lives needlessly. To fail to remember is to increase the risk of a recurrence. Obama's (guarded) comments in Germany yesterday recognised this, whilst speaking of the utility of the EU.

[bog]

What a bunch of twats. Sometimes words fail me....I have a thought of what FIFA really stnds for but it is not suitable for here.

092.gif

[Logicalman]

FIFA is just protecting its brand, sullied as it may be, for worldwide sponsorships revenue.   We've seen their draconian branding rules imposed on whole cities, entire nations, in past World Cups.  They got laws passed in host countries creating geographic buffer zones against guerilla marketing efforts by advertisers who didn't agree to be extorted by FIFA for huge sponsorship dollars for category exclusivity.   FIFA's position, I think, is that it cannot tolerate any unauthorized 'branding' expressions associated with their sanctioned events, as such activity would devalue  the presumed worth of such sponsorships to the sponsors.  But this is different in the sense that the instant symbol isn't commercial in nature.  Under trademark law, infringement occurs with the likelihood of confusion as to commercial source, nexus, association, affiliation, sponsorship, etc., of the underlying goods or services.  But poppy signage isn't about commercial use.  Rather, it's noncommercial speech.  A call to remember those who lost their lives in defense of their country in past wars.  Hardly commercial in nature.  And thus not trademark infringement under the tarnishment wing of trademark law.  No, this is about not offending current and potential sponsors from countries who might be deemed to take offense at the poppy symbolism.  Like German sponsors who don't want the 'market' for their goods and services to be offended by poppy symbolism.  You and I think that symbolism is universal.  FIFA isn't taking any chances and doesn't want the difficult task of playing arbiter of what's universally acceptable noncommercial symbolism, and what isn't.   We may see the poppy as a memorial to the fallen in any war, for any country, a nod to sacrifice for the greater good.  The ultimate sacrifice.  But maybe a contingent of German fans of the game don't see it that way, see it as politicised, nationalistic, an affront.  So FIFA bans all such expressions on uniforms as breaches of its rules, and ends up antagonising an entire nation with the hope that doing so will keep its image stronger for sponsorship revenue everywhere.  Bizarre snake eats its own head mentality.   Once I start making exceptions, the camel's nose is in the tent.  But all this really does is infuriate whole groups of people, who don't understand brand integrity rules applied in extremis.  There's no doubt FIFA has lost its way, sacrificing common sense to the altar of Sponsorship Revenue.  No changing of the guard will fix that.  FIFA's very life blood is sponsorship revenue.   So it acts only to protect that interest.

I think this is spot on.

As unfortunate as we all think it is, FIFA does what FIFA does in the sole interests of FIFA.

They HAD to take action after the game as they have warned both teams it was not acceptable and both teams (rightly) ignored it, so FIFA were left with no option but to proceed, except to publicly back down and open the flood gates for every team to ignore their demands - a no-win.

Likely FIFA will know they are on a loser morally here (though such things as morals have not exactly been high on their list previously) and might just provide the customary administrative slap on the wrist 'final warning' to save face.

[bog]

For Woolly Mammoth. Effing Idots Effin A***holes....all of them.

092.gif

[Neil D]

The vehemence of the anti-FIFA rage in the tabloids may itself serve a political purpose.  One trans-national organisation (the EU) has already been successfully branded as an anti-British refuge for foreign scoundrels and self-servers.  Clearly FIFA is getting the same treatment.  What's next? The World Health Organisation? The UN? After these pesky, foreign-run organisations have been sorted, we can all go back to our cottage firesides, bowler hats, Bisto, country lanes, warm beer, handkerchief hats, deckchairs, rolled-up trousers on Blackpool beach and saucy postcards.  And we'll be shot of Johnny Foreigner forever.

[alexmur]

They fined ireland for commemorating their independence when we had 1916 Jersey for a friendly. It's an example of a bureaucrat with too much time on their hands

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[bog]

Thanks Woolly, ope no one else sees it....

092.gif

[f321ffc]

 

For Woolly Mammoth. Effing Idots Effin A***holes....all of them.

092.gif

Surely that would be EIEA, thought we were talking about FIFA. fp.gif