FIFA: Hypothetically speaking, Its about the Regime Change, Stupid
Awhile back there was a thread about FIFA controversy in soccer and a possible PetroShoeCo connection. I didn’t have time to comment then. I don’t have much insight to add except this: if a global PetroApparel oligopoly market regime were to be imposed, and if it were to have to be implemented in part by gaining control of crucial sports institutions to be used enable the implementation of the global PetroApparel Producer Oligopoly regime, well, then it stands to reason that FIFA, like the NCAA, has to be subjected to regime change in order to subordinate it to the new order.
One historical way to subordinate legacy institutions is apparently to insinuate your agent producer oligopoly firms into business with them, then have your agent organization engage in whatever form of corruption that legacy institutiona requires them to engage in, then engage the USA legal/regulatory system (backed by USA military force and central bank force) to “look into the corruption,” make your agent organization pay a fine that it passes the cost of onto its consumers, then mobilize to destabilize and regime change the corrupt institutional organization that was your target for regime change all along.
There are reputed historical examples of this sort of thing involving oil companies paying bribes in conflicted third world countries, after which those third world countries legacy institutional organizations get a serious dose of regime change. Same in airlines seeking access to airports globally and seeking to sell planes in foreign markets, especially during the era of airline deregulation and reregulation. You read about it every once in awhile when the Anglo-American private oligarchy is expanding into foreign markets and wants to impose its agenda of producer oligopoly regimes on the new foreign markets. It is apparently just how business is done in the rather more anarchic international realms.
Foreign legacy institution is corrupt to some degree or another.
Pay it bribes that are its normal mode.
Leak and investigate.
Have the Anglo-American firm apologize for paying the bribes and say its the only way for American producer oligopolists to participate.
This generates a rationalization for legal/regulatory intervention in the publics mind in foreign countries’ institutions and that in turn opens up the option of swinging the big military stick if the foreign legacy institutional organization won’t reconform to new producer oligopoly regime needs.
In five-10 years, voila, the legacy institutional organization is “reformed” to producer oligopoly regime needs.
FIFA and its hold on crucial soccer would appear a prime candidate for such regime change.
So: hypothetically speaking, let’s epigram this Jim Carville style as: its about the regime change, stupid.
Then wait and see if evidence accrues over time that supports or refutes the hypothesis.
drgnslayr last edited by
The US DOJ targets FIFA and digs deep enough to target Nike.
Nike has previously resisted claims by the DOJ of sweatshops in China… in many ways “rubbing it in” by disclosing detailed information about their China sweatshops in their very own Corporate Governance Report.
Chinese government invests heavily in Nike stock both in Nike America and Nike China.
Now US targets Nike.
Chinese government attack US government servers.
JayHawkFanToo last edited by
The FIFA president that oversaw the whole thing just got re-elected…
@JayHawkFanToo He also just resigned.
HawksWin last edited by
@jaybate-1.0 Hi JB. Where have you been? Say, I came across this anti-Nike article, a bit far fetched I believe, but I don’t know how the shoeco giants work. This writer is out for Nike’s blood. Thoughts? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3112999/Mo-Farah-s-drug-storm-trainer-FIFA-cesspit-Sex-addict-Tiger-Woods-Cheating-cyclist-Lance-Armstrong-scandals-run-one-troubling-thread-NIKE.html
JayHawkFanToo last edited by JayHawkFanToo
Correct, however, his re-election was a message that most of the world does not care. He is staying until a new president is elected sometime in November-December and I would not be surprised if he runs again and is re-elected.
Exactly. Regime change often involves nothing more than bringing the existing regime into greater compliance.
I am not anti-Nike at all.
I like Nike. I like adidas. I like under armor.
And I would really like it if Red Wing, or W.C. Russell, or Alden shoes, would get into the sports shoe and apparel business, too. (Note: I just love W.C. Russell moccassin chukkas.)
I am pro KU and pro KU getting the best recruits it can.
If KU realigning with Nike would get KU a ten stack and four footers, then I would be for it, unless some law enforcement or sports regulatory authority were to tell me that that would be a bad move for KU.
I know our oil companies do some pretty horrible things, but on the whole I like our oil companies better than I like Russian oil companies not jointly owned by our oil companies.
Same with Petro Shoecos.
I am an American and so I am always going to side with Nike over adidas, except when Nike is breaking a law, or when Nike has some kind of market advantage that keeps KU from recruiting as well as UK and Duke.
Otherwise, Nike is okay.
But the problem is that apparently KU is having some trouble getting the kind of bigs it needs to be as competitive as the father of all basketball programs ought to be.
And so, as a good fan, I just have to post about it from time to time.
Interesting idea. I will be a good board rat and watch for evidence supporting, or refuting, what seems a hypothesis.
I sure would go to a movie starring George Clooney and Denzel “Alpha ZXT” Washington with this scenario.
Alas, China-American relations have always been very hard for me to figure out. I have never studied them systematically and they are complicated to put it mildly. The moment I heard President Obama say we were going to have a China Pivot, I knew it was going to have substantial implications that I wouldn’t be able to anticipate.
Thx for introducing that. I had missed it. It seems indicative of the complex dynamics that cascade once regime change begins to be imposed.