Panorama

[benjii]

Was it any good?

 

I couldn't be bothered. From what they were saying on 5Live on the way home it related to some rehashed accusations based on monies paid in the 1990s FFS.

 

Sounded like a sad, grasping attempt at publicity by the Beeb really.

[swannymere]

Caught snippets and thought it really did show what a bunch of corrupt buffoons FIFA are, old boys club springs to mind. It'll never change unless they start with a clean sweep of the old guard. It'll probably lose us the Cup, so be it.

[BadgerBadger]

What big organisation isn't a big corrupt old boys network. Expose the buggers I say, we're pretty good at it and it'll even make us or break us

[Give it to Ron]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11841783 so they waited until 3 days before the vote for something that happened in the 90's.

It came across to me like a sad bitter old man plotting revenge on FIFA.

[Big John]

/\

agreed, i was wondering when he was gonna get to the 2018 bid shenanigans.

 

i think it comes as no surprise to many that big 'not for profit' organisations are oft infiltrated by shysters and some even wriggle their way to the very top and then give their corrupt mates a leg up. Shame of it is that should the truth out then their might be no one left to run the show.

[benjii]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11841783 so they waited until 3 days before the vote for something that happened in the 90's.

It came across to me like a sad bitter old man plotting revenge on FIFA.

 

Exactly.

 

I saw a programme about FIFA and dodgy payments from a sports agency company years ago. This sounds like a really lame attempt by the Beeb to expose something that everyone knew already.

[Big John]

it was worse than the failed attempt the other year to snare harry r and sam a et al.

 

You could tell that the whole set up is as good as bulletproof and any attempt to infiltrate is futile. still doesn't explain why i watched the whole thing waiting for the killer punch though, damn you Panorama, I expected better from the beeb.

[docker-p]

A lot of it was already known, but no harm reminding people what a bunch of crooks run the game. If broadcasters in other countries reported FIFAs corruption more often then they might start cleaning up their act.

[Chez]

the point I took away was that Cameron will, over the next three days be begging to three or four (or maybe more) totally currupt pieces of **** to try and get the World cup here.

 

Taking all politics aside, Cameron and the other English bid officials needs to seriously consider what they are doing. With all the corruption surrounding politicians in recent times they should seriously be considering stepping away from this `lobbying process' which we now know is one great bih series of backhanders and bribes. Instead of begging for votes we should be asking FIFA serious questions.

 

The country doesn't NEED the World cup. It would be nice, maybe, but is it worth selling your soul for? We gave the world the game, perhaps we ought to make a stand and reclaim it from this totally currupt organisation that fails time after to time to investigate clear breaches of its own rules. FIFA disgusts me.

[Chez]

A lot of it was already known, but no harm reminding people what a bunch of crooks run the game. If broadcasters in other countries reported FIFAs corruption more often then they might start cleaning up their act.

 

The two guys from Norway clearly have raised issues with FIFA in their country. Maybe more have done the same. I had to laugh when they asked Blatter about the Jack Walker ticket tout situation only to be told it would only be investigated if raised by "official lines" yet these official lines don't actually exist.

 

I wonder if the world's press will report on the programme's findings.

[Hatch]

Why was the voice over done using a comedy voice?

I couldn't take it seriously. It was like a little Britain sketch show.

[georgeweahscousin]

Shameful of the BBC to use taxpayers money to try and derail the World Cup bid in my opinion.

 

They could have at least waited until after the vote.

[benjii]

Shameful of the BBC to use taxpayers money to try and derail the World Cup bid in my opinion.

 

They could have at least waited until after the vote.

 

I would have no problem with it if it was contemporary but apparently it contained no substantive allegations on anything other than stuff that happened in the 1990s? So by implication they've got nothing on them for the last ten years? I mean, seriously, WTF is the point of that?

 

Chez, I think you make a valid point - there are questions to be asked about whether we want to deal with these people but I think those questions would have to run deeper than that (and would've existed with or without this programme). I don't see how we can say we want no part in the World Cup bidding process and at the same time endorse the FA competing in FIFA competitions.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Shameful of the BBC to use taxpayers money to try and derail the World Cup bid in my opinion.

 

They could have at least waited until after the vote.

 

You're spot on. The BBC took a commercial decision but they are not a commercial broadcaster. Had ITV or Sky ran with this yesterday, that would be understandable as they have to maximise viewing figures, for the BBC to use our money to do so was shameful. The other point is that Sky and ITV would have had a decision to make as to whether running this so close to the vote would have a backlash that would affect their profits. Sky viewers could cancel or advertisiers could pull out. The BBC has none of this to worry about. If we dont get the bid because of this programme we can hardly withhold our licence fee, as we'll be put in prison.Had Sky run with this, then anyone disgusted by the timing could have hit them commercially by withdrawing from their services.

 

The BBC is either a commercial broadcaster or a national broadcaster run in the interests of the nation, it can not be both.

[Special K]

The timing of the programme was, from journalistic terms, spot on. The profile of the FIFA committee will not be greater than in the coming days and i think it was fair enough to do this now, providing that they are confident their sources and information are spot on. Panorama have not obligation to the 2018 bid team although, as usual, people are confusing some sort of "moral" obligation with it. Wide of the mark imho. I think it is fair enough as the bid may not be successful anyway. If the allegations are correct, then it's high time that FIFA cleaned its act up and if this, along with other media pressure from elsewhere forces it, then it can only be a good thing.

[Wade Garrett]

the point I took away was that Cameron will, over the next three days be begging to three or four (or maybe more) totally currupt pieces of **** to try and get the World cup here.

 

Taking all politics aside, Cameron and the other English bid officials needs to seriously consider what they are doing. With all the corruption surrounding politicians in recent times they should seriously be considering stepping away from this `lobbying process' which we now know is one great bih series of backhanders and bribes. Instead of begging for votes we should be asking FIFA serious questions.

 

The country doesn't NEED the World cup. It would be nice, maybe, but is it worth selling your soul for? We gave the world the game, perhaps we ought to make a stand and reclaim it from this totally currupt organisation that fails time after to time to investigate clear breaches of its own rules. FIFA disgusts me.

 

Spot on. Russia will probably win because they are as corrupt as FIFA. We are better off out of it. FIFA hate us anyway, it's no coincidence that we are always on the end of dodgy refereeing decisions at the World Cup.

 

It wouldn't bother me one bit if we pulled out of future World Cups full stop, until all of the corrupt FIFA officials (Blatter included) are ousted.

[Saint Lindford]

FIFA have been exposed as a corrupt organisation now on several occasions, last nights programme was just the latest in a long saga of TV programmes and books, and nothing has been done. England does not need the World Cup, FIFA need the World Cup in England to generate the most income. Let it go to Russia and have poor attendences and make a fraction of what it would do in this country.

[Bath Saint]

Listening to Today this morning, apparently, the Panorama Team received the firm evidence about five weeks ago. They then presented the info to FIFA about three weeks ago - at the same time, more-or-less and the Times scoop. FIFA acted on the Times revelations but refused to respond to Panorama (presumably because they hadn't yet broadcast their programme. Problem is that Panorama are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they had broadcast the programme after England had lost the bid, then it would all look like sour grapes.

 

Personally, my view is along the same lines as Chez's. Although these bribes took place in the 90s, the corrupt tossers who took those bribes are still in post and making decisions that will have a profound impact on the structure and direction of world football. Cameron et al will be cosying up to these individuals and, even if they don't participate in bribery (which I'm sure they wouldn't) they are lending it tacit support and are soiled by association.

 

I am pleased to see British reporters at the forefront of exposing this kind of thing. We may have all suspected this to be the case, but now we have convincing evidence. The problem lies, of course, in the structure of FIFA - a bunch of unaccountable blokes with total hegemony over a very lucrative sport. They wield substantial power and, without accountability, are liable to corruption. Investigative journalism is the only form of accountability there is in this situation. Thankfully, we have a free press who can make these journalistic decisions without interference from Government.

 

As Chez says, if we lose the bid, so be it. Give it to Russia - they know all about corruption......

[Hatch]

Who decides who broadcasts WC matches, either way, FIFA or the FA should shun the Beeb and give the games to ITV/SKY/ESPN or whoever.

[franny]

The corruption and gravy train that is FIFA and the IOC is legendary, the only stand against it I can remember I think was Princess Anne resigning her position within the IOC because of the corruption going on and she did not want to be tainted by it. Let's face it we have all banged on about Harry et al allegedly taking bribes, that is also corruption but the English FA have not done much (other than George Graham) to stamp it out here, look at the corruption in skatesville what has happened or been exposed there?

What example have we seen from our politicians over the last few years with millions being siphoned off for second homes, employing family members etc..it is all corruption but in a different guise.

Assuming the allegations are correct probably the guys named saw no wrong in what they did, it is probably in their eyes a perk of the job, much like the way our MP's saw their perks, and in that I include those at Westminster and the cheating bar stewards in Brussels.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The timing of the programme was, from journalistic terms, spot on. The profile of the FIFA committee will not be greater than in the coming days and i think it was fair enough to do this now, providing that they are confident their sources and information are spot on. Panorama have not obligation to the 2018 bid team although, as usual, people are confusing some sort of "moral" obligation with it.

 

As the BBC is funded by a poll tax and is not a commercial organisation it should not act like one. It is in the nation's interests to have the World Cup and therefore the BBC should have braodcast earlier or after the vote.They have an obligation to their stakeholders (us) that is wider than any "journalistic terms". They are either the state broadcaster or a commercial broadcaster, they can not be both.

 

Had Sky pulled a stunt like this and it cost us the World Cup I would cancel my package and not watch them ( and so I suspect would countless others), if we do that to the BBC we'd end up in prison.The BBC want their cake and eat it over this and I hope the FA reward them by giving the Premiership highlights to ITV next time round.

[benjii]

As the BBC is funded by a poll tax and is not a commercial organisation it should not act like one. It is in the nation's interests to have the World Cup and therefore the BBC should have braodcast earlier or after the vote.They have an obligation to their stakeholders (us) that is wider than any "journalistic terms". They are either the state broadcaster or a commercial broadcaster, they can not be both.

 

Had Sky pulled a stunt like this and it cost us the World Cup I would cancel my package and not watch them ( and so I suspect would countless others), if we do that to the BBC we'd end up in prison.The BBC want their cake and eat it over this and I hope the FA reward them by giving the Premiership highlights to ITV next time round.

 

Agreed, although would rather they gave them to Channel 4 or 5 than ITV to be honest!

[Eastcowzer]

Who decides who broadcasts WC matches, either way, FIFA or the FA should shun the Beeb and give the games to ITV/SKY/ESPN or whoever.

 

In the words of a now retired tennis player 'You cannot be serious'

The World Cup games have to be shown om terrestial TV which eliminates the satellite broadcasters, thank God, while letting ITV do it all will be as good as watching the Magic Roundabout which will probably be better. ITV should be kept well clear of ALL football. Witness the shambles of last weekend and the FA Cup. Ian Dreary, et al.

[Special K]

As the BBC is funded by a poll tax and is not a commercial organisation it should not act like one. It is in the nation's interests to have the World Cup and therefore the BBC should have braodcast earlier or after the vote.They have an obligation to their stakeholders (us) that is wider than any "journalistic terms". They are either the state broadcaster or a commercial broadcaster, they can not be both.

 

Had Sky pulled a stunt like this and it cost us the World Cup I would cancel my package and not watch them ( and so I suspect would countless others), if we do that to the BBC we'd end up in prison.The BBC want their cake and eat it over this and I hope the FA reward them by giving the Premiership highlights to ITV next time round.

 

It is far from certain that a) the bid would be successful and b) Panorama will have any influence over the voting of the FIFA committee. Irrespective of this, the BBC has an obligation to inform and to use the timing of such information to it's best advantage, which it has done. IMHO i don't think it has crossed the line as i do not see a direct link between them and the 2018 bid. This should not be confused with what obligation they have to the "stakeholders" or licence fee payers. I don't particulary like 80% of the programmes they make, but that is personal choice and not because they owe me an obligation to put on programmes that appeal to just me. It is obviously unpalatable for some, but then again I didn't see many complaints (on here) when they WERE found to be negligent with their programme on Live Aid money being used to buy weapons by corrupt governments, which IMHO was a far more damaging allegation. Perhaps it's just because it's football as i remember Panorama showing a similar programme with allegations into IOC corruption before the vote on the 2012 Olympics was made. Lo and behold, we still won it.

[Pancake]

It is in the nation's interests to have the World Cup and therefore the BBC should have braodcast earlier or after the vote.

 

In the nations interest? Say whaaaaaaaat? Another crippling sporting event run by a corrupt organisation that will, yet again, see more money from everyone's taxes being spent on an event that will interest a percentage of the country. In the middle of the biggest economic downturn in living memory. Directly after we haemorrhage billions on the Olympics.

 

Err, for that reason Im glad the BBC did this. I would rather have freedom of journalists to write and publish what they want, than the WC any day of the week.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

Err, for that reason Im glad the BBC did this. I would rather have freedom of journalists to write and publish what they want, than the WC any day of the week.

 

Nobody is denying the right to publish what they want, the issue is the timing. They had this info 3 weeks ago, why didn't they run with it then. Had they, it may have stopped the 3 alledged corrupt members from voting. Had the programme stopped these 3 voting, then that would have been a good outcome, as it is, it's too near to the vote for that to happen. Why was it broadcast in the week of the vote and not before, for maximum publicity and viewing figures thats why. Personally I dont think an organisation funded out of taxation should be putting publicity and viewing figures to the forefront of their programme timings,especially as it means the 3 members still vote. The Times ran their story weeks ago and as a result some delagates lost the vote, the BBC left it so late that the corrupt ones they exposed, still vote. Had the Times ran with their story today and harmed our vote, they may have lost readers in protest. The BBC have no such worries as they rely on a compulsary poll tax. If they want to base their programmes on maximum publicity and viewing figures they should be subject to the same constraints as commercial broadcasters and media outlets.

[Thedelldays]

the timing of this news was for no other reason than to gain extra ratings...seeing as the BBC is supposed to be a public service organisation..it is sad that they did it like this

 

might as well let them show adverts now and scrap the license fee if this is how the operate

[Lord Duckhunter]

the timing of this news was for no other reason than to gain extra ratings...seeing as the BBC is supposed to be a public service organisation..it is sad that they did it like this

 

might as well let them show adverts now and scrap the license fee if this is how the operate

 

+1, spot on.

[sandwichsaint]

Spot on. Russia will probably win because they are as corrupt as FIFA. We are better off out of it. FIFA hate us anyway, it's no coincidence that we are always on the end of dodgy refereeing decisions at the World Cup.

 

It wouldn't bother me one bit if we pulled out of future World Cups full stop, until all of the corrupt FIFA officials (Blatter included) are ousted.

 

 

Yeah, that and cr8p players, cr8p managers, cr8p preparation, cr8p tactics ... I don't think we really need FIFAs big ref conspiracy to put us out of World Cups, do you?

[aintforever]

I have no problem with them exposing how corrupt FIFA are but the timing is ****ed up.

 

Delldays is right, if all the BBC is concerned with is gaining ratings with this type of sensationalist crap then they shouldn't be funded by the tax payer.

[redkeith]

If they had shown it afterwards and England had lost the bid, it would have been dismissed as sour grapes.

 

The whole FIFA operation does need looking at, in my own opinion. There needs to be more transparency about where the WC is allocated, and there should be an enquiry about ticket pricing, after all the empty seats in South Africa. Tickets should be sold at a fixed mark up on what normal league game tickets would cost in the country holding the competition, so that the fans that maintain the leagues in those countries can afford to go to the World Cup, which is supposed to be for theit benefit. Unless the last world cup was just about getting white middle class africans to switch from rugby.

 

Also, the new stadium sizing criteria are rediculous. 32,000 is perfectly adequate for most group games. I don't mind if England loses the bid, as it will save Plymouth and Bristol City fans from having to watch their game from one stand, while the rest of the white elephant stadias are closed to save money.

[Thedelldays]

If they had shown it afterwards and England had lost the bid, it would have been dismissed as sour grapes.

 

The whole FIFA operation does need looking at, in my own opinion. There needs to be more transparency about where the WC is allocated, and there should be an enquiry about ticket pricing, after all the empty seats in South Africa. Tickets should be sold at a fixed mark up on what normal league game tickets would cost in the country holding the competition, so that the fans that maintain the leagues in those countries can afford to go to the World Cup, which is supposed to be for theit benefit. Unless the last world cup was just about getting white middle class africans to switch from rugby.

 

Also, the new stadium sizing criteria are rediculous. 32,000 is perfectly adequate for most group games. I don't mind if England loses the bid, as it will save Plymouth and Bristol City fans from having to watch their game from one stand, while the rest of the white elephant stadias are closed to save money.

does it really matter if plymouth and bristol have 40k stadiums...what has that got to do with saints and england in general.

 

i would not care if plymouth have a ground too big for them if it meant the worlds greatest sporting event would be in my country...

as for brizzle...8k seats would be temporary and their ground would be reduced to around 32k after the WC....for a club like bristol city with the sheer potential they have...40k would not seem out of place really

[Give it to Ron]

Its not just the timing for me it was some of the content of the 'evidence' Sandut JH ...Jaoao Havelange has the initials JH...well thats ok then there is only one JH in the world.

[AndyNorthernSaints]

FIFA have been exposed as a corrupt organisation now on several occasions, last nights programme was just the latest in a long saga of TV programmes and books, and nothing has been done. England does not need the World Cup, FIFA need the World Cup in England to generate the most income. Let it go to Russia and have poor attendences and make a fraction of what it would do in this country.

 

Agree. Russia will win because they are the most corrupt and will have paid the most money. If England don't get it this time after all these years since 1966 they should just tell FIFA where to go and not bid ever again.

[Wade Garrett]

I have no problem with them exposing how corrupt FIFA are but the timing is ****ed up.

 

Delldays is right, if all the BBC is concerned with is gaining ratings with this type of sensationalist crap then they shouldn't be funded by the tax payer.

 

It's not sensationalist if it's true. Why should we suck up to those corrupt f*ckers at FIFA anyway? If the BBC were broadcasting inaccuracies then I would be at the front of the queue slagging them off. But they aren't.

[Wade Garrett]

Agree. Russia will win because they are the most corrupt and will have paid the most money. If England don't get it this time after all these years since 1966 they should just tell FIFA where to go and not bid ever again.

 

Agree 100%. I wouldn't even bother sending a team until the sh*te has been weeded out of FIFA.

[aintforever]

It's not sensationalist if it's true. Why should we suck up to those corrupt f*ckers at FIFA anyway? If the BBC were broadcasting inaccuracies then I would be at the front of the queue slagging them off. But they aren't.

 

I couldn't care less how accurate it is, at the moment we need to suck up to those corrupt ****ers to get the World Cup.

 

No one cares about what they broadcast, it's the timing. The BBC have deliberately timed it to maximise ratings/publicity with no care to what the effects might be.

 

If we miss out on the World Cup because of this hopefully Cameron will rip the arse out of their budget, or even privatise them.

[Thedelldays]

 

If we miss out on the World Cup because of this hopefully Cameron will rip the arse out of their budget, or even privatise them.

 

Amen to that...if they want to act like ITV/SKY...lets treat them like it

[Verbal]

I couldn't care less how accurate it is, at the moment we need to suck up to those corrupt ****ers to get the World Cup.

 

No one cares about what they broadcast, it's the timing. The BBC have deliberately timed it to maximise ratings/publicity with no care to what the effects might be.

 

If we miss out on the World Cup because of this hopefully Cameron will rip the arse out of their budget, or even privatise them.

 

Thank god none of you are allowed anywhere near journalism - but it's depressing to see such profound ignorance of a connection between free inquiry and the kind of society we (should) live in.

[Wade Garrett]

I couldn't care less how accurate it is, at the moment we need to suck up to those corrupt ****ers to get the World Cup.

 

No one cares about what they broadcast, it's the timing. The BBC have deliberately timed it to maximise ratings/publicity with no care to what the effects might be.

 

If we miss out on the World Cup because of this hopefully Cameron will rip the arse out of their budget, or even privatise them.

 

Why the f*ck do we need to suck up to a load of weasels, just so we can host their personal gravy train?

 

F*ck them.

[Wade Garrett]

Amen to that...if they want to act like ITV/SKY...lets treat them like it

 

You seem to have a profound hatred of a media that doesn't conform to your views.

 

Sounds almost communist.

[aintforever]

Why the f*ck do we need to suck up to a load of weasels, just so we can host their personal gravy train?

 

F*ck them.

 

Because it would be nice to watch the World Cup in this country?

[Pancake]

Because it would be nice to watch the World Cup in this country?

 

Why? So we can spend even more money we havent got?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Thank god none of you are allowed anywhere near journalism - but it's depressing to see such profound ignorance of a connection between free inquiry and the kind of society we (should) live in.

 

There was nothing new in the programme, the events took place 10-20 years ago. The timing was a delibrate commercial decision to attract viewers and publicity, not to weed out corruption in FIFA. If that was the case then they would have aired the programme with enough time for the corrupt members to be investigated and even suspended (like the Times story did).If the BBC want to act like a commercial outlet, then fine, do away with the poll tax that funds them. My issue was not the content or the right to investigate it was the timing of the programme.

[Wade Garrett]

There was nothing new in the programme, the events took place 10-20 years ago. The timing was a delibrate commercial decision to attract viewers and publicity, not to weed out corruption in FIFA. If that was the case then they would have aired the programme with enough time for the corrupt members to be investigated and even suspended (like the Times story did).If the BBC want to act like a commercial outlet, then fine, do away with the poll tax that funds them. My issue was not the content or the right to investigate it was the timing of the programme.

 

To be fair to the BBC, they went to FIFA when they had firm evidence of wrongdoing, and FIFA chose not to act. This reasonably leads to the belief that they condone the wrongdoings.

 

If FIFA had done the right thing, Panorama wouldn't have run with the story.

[Thedelldays]

To be fair to the BBC, they went to FIFA when they had firm evidence of wrongdoing, and FIFA chose not to act. This reasonably leads to the belief that they condone the wrongdoings.

 

If FIFA had done the right thing, Panorama wouldn't have run with the story.

 

the whole point of why people are peed off with the beeb...is the timing..they did it to maximise their own ratings..which as a public broadcaster...that is NOT what they are there to do

[Thedelldays]

You seem to have a profound hatred of a media that doesn't conform to your views.

 

Sounds almost communist.

 

not at all...I just do not like being forced to pay for what is (in my opinion) not worth the money....I have no choice but to pay for the beeb

[swannymere]

It's quite odd that the majority seem to want to blame the BBC for upsetting FIFA and potentially endangering the WC bid, but scream blue bloody murder at the faintest hint of wrong-doing at the other end of the M27, hang your heads in shame.

[ecuk268]

Why? So we can spend even more money we havent got?

 

Good point.

 

The Dutch calculated that they would lose about 100 million euros staging the World Cup.

 

I think the point of the programme was not the allegations themselves but that FIFA showed no interest in investigating them.

[Viking Warrior]

I watched the programme , again another poor programme by the beeb. It seemed very unprofesional especially by the journalist

who came across as a sleasy character in a dirty brown raincoat. I thought I was watching columbo mark 2

 

Did Warner say we being harangued by the journa that he would spit on him but he wouldnt as his spit had more dignity?

 

A for the voice over nearly as good as come dine with me

 

As for our bid , I dont think the panorama programme will affect the decision as it has already been made by those with the vote.

There is corruption in football look at the big 4 in the premier league allegedlly