Carl Sagan Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 Not sure if this is for the footy forum or the pub. I'm working on a project that we hope will change the world for the better (!!). It's about decentralization, taking power away from massive corporations or distant governments and giving it to individuals. Who will have to agree to disagree. If we can change football, perhaps it will be easier to change the world? Hence me question, what difference would it make to the game (for better or worse) if there was no centralized governing body but decisions were taken by the global fanbase? National associations would be replaced too. These would become decentralized networks. It might be global governance would be conceded by national networks to a higher-level global network. The network could decide on rule changes like the backpass, or whether and how to implement VAR. And where the World Cup will be held (and how often) and how it will be organized. It's all transparent and if you're a person in a position of authority your life is extremely public (that's the tradeoff) so we would spot if you were taking bribes. As a more micro example, how would Spygate have been handled? You wouldn't give the adjudication to the fans as they're biased. It's our job to be passionate and see things through club-tinted spectacles. So instead it would be the decentralized network of the professional football community. Because we had a vested interest, neither Derby nor the dirty Leeds would have a part in the decision. Instead everyone from outside of those clubs would choose whether it was a massive deal or nothing important. It might be the Argentine network said this is fine and the English network said you can never send people surreptitiously to other training grounds. I'm just thinking aloud, but would be interested in other opinions. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 You'd only end up with alternative invested powers running the game for their own interests not the good of the game. Take out UEFA for example and you'll end up with a cabal of certain top European cubs running the show to maximise their control and profitability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimRam Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 2 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said: You'd only end up with alternative invested powers running the game for their own interests not the good of the game. Take out UEFA for example and you'll end up with a cabal of certain top European cubs running the show to maximise their control and profitability. Like the top 6 of the Premiership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Sagan Posted February 23, 2019 Author Share Posted February 23, 2019 3 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said: You'd only end up with alternative invested powers running the game for their own interests not the good of the game. Take out UEFA for example and you'll end up with a cabal of certain top European cubs running the show to maximise their control and profitability. If clubs have more supporters is it fairer for them to have a bigger say? Or does a higher league position give you a bigger say? Or does everyone have an equal voice? For most of this everyone has an equal voice. I think that would be the intention with football. Of course vested interests wouldn't like it, but the idea is that a decentralized future is unstoppable and much more efficient/powerful. I've not explained it very well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Millenniumram Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 Thought you meant without the game then, had my pitchforks at the ready to storm your house? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 14 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said: If clubs have more supporters is it fairer for them to have a bigger say? Or does a higher league position give you a bigger say? Or does everyone have an equal voice? For most of this everyone has an equal voice. I think that would be the intention with football. Of course vested interests wouldn't like it, but the idea is that a decentralized future is unstoppable and much more efficient/powerful. I've not explained it very well! I think it'll invariably end up with those with the most money get what they want, and be getting what they want they make sure they continue to have the most. it's not so much any particular structure of football governance, more my cynical take on how power and influence play out. The governing bodies like Fifa etc are riddled with problems, I just have little faith a restructuring won't substitute different ones. I'd go for the equal say as the starting point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
therealhantsram Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 Without the dominant controlling power, you will get infighting and breakaways. The breakaways would have different rules. At best there would be two codes... Like Rugby. At worst you could end up with a situation like boxing with four 'World champions' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 It's a nice idea, but can fans be trusted to act in the best interests of the game as a whole? Clever use of memetics got Trump elected president of the most powerful country in the world, just imagine what it could do to football. Your specific example confused me somewhat. If we have a system where fans are making decisions and there's no governing body, who decides that spygate will be treated differently and voted on by professionals rather than fans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Sagan Posted February 24, 2019 Author Share Posted February 24, 2019 17 hours ago, therealhantsram said: Without the dominant controlling power, you will get infighting and breakaways. The breakaways would have different rules. At best there would be two codes... Like Rugby. At worst you could end up with a situation like boxing with four 'World champions' That's a really useful observation thanks. Yes I can see that happening with rival sets of rules. And one of the things I love about the World Cup is it's only once every four years. And then your team might not even qualify (though FIFA do keep expanding it). I'd hate people trying to organize it more often. The misguided (to mind) people forever plugging a breakaway European super league ignore that fans are much more interested in domestic rivalries and the European games were special because they were rare. Of course they're a lot less rare now, but it still applies to a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FindernRam Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 Power to the people is a wonderful fantasy. At the end of the day someone has to lead. Imagine your network, billions of people at the bottom- millions of ideas- many the same but not identical, how do you aggregate them upwards to your network? How do you even frame the question when there are 5000 "major" languages spoken? Who decides who is on the network? Any business person will tell you the more people in a meeting the less likely a decision will be made, and of course accountability for failure disappears. Today FIFA appears to be semi democratic, if somewhat corrupted. To quote Churchill "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others". This week VAR was in the spotlight (again). A decision was made on a handball. This raised huge controversy not only on the use of VAR but the interpretation of one of the most fundamental rules in football. Now if after 150 years a few people (Ref, linesmen, Var Ref, and Pundits) can't agree on something so basic what chance does a network have? As I wrote this I had a vision of everyone at home watching the game with a thumb on a box with Red and Green buttons. Every tackle, offside goal would be like a gladiator in the ring waiting for the crowds decision whether to kill the beaten opponent or not! Not for me I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.