Talk:2015 FIFA corruption case

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 July 2019 and 22 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Riven1726. Peer reviewers: Tiax22x, BenN57.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2020 and 23 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fgallegos8.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Who's the victim?

After reading all the news coverage and this article, I still don't understand who is the victim of this crime. The guys at FIFA were getting money to favor this or that contract by FIFA. So what? This article could make it clear... --damiens.rf 18:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there necessarily has to be one "victim". The US has laws and regulations that are intended to prevent an enterprise from conducting unfair business. These laws and regulations were allegedly broken, and thus we begin the criminal justice system. Mz7 (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The victim is (at least) anybody/everybody who would have been unfairly/illegally deprived of financial opportunity. We're talking about very big money here (hence the allegation of very large bribes). --IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

And who, in this case, was unfairly deprived of financial opportunities? Maybe the companies that could have had won a fairly disputed contract, but didn't. Or the countries that applied to host the World Cup but didn't... That is it? Do the US have laws to protect such individuals (companies and countries) in such circumstances (overseas business)?

While I understand these behavior is "immoral", @Mz7: and @IfYouDoIfYouDon't:, I'm still failing to understand why the US cares about it.

(I'm not using the talk page for a general forum about the topic, what would be inappropriate. I'm still suggesting that the article could make these points clear. That would be informative.). --damiens.rf 00:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The stance of the question is incorrect. The correct one would be "in whose favor is this decision". It's not like somebody SUDDENLY found out that there're bribes. The situation is exactly the same as with Dominique Strauss-Kahn few years ago. The US position is such that the unwanted person must go. I think all people around the world and all football fans should stand united against US on this and give them the finger.89.233.128.158 (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The victims of bribery are those competitors that did not resort to committing crimes in order to get what they wanted, as well as people who run activities funded by FIFA who receive less money for their cause because money intended for use by FIFA has been diverted into the private accounts of those individuals who are running it i.e. Organisation B is rewarded a contract ahead of organisations A and C due to person 1 being bribed, organisation B and person 1 have benefited, the victims are organisation A and C and the people/organisation person 1 represents.--EchetusXe 16:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

To understand it better I would suggest reading the indictment, specifically Page 30. Jmj713 (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. That says it all:

“ By conspiring to enrich themselves through bribery and kickback schemes relating to media and marketing rights, among other schemes, the defendants deprived FIFA, the confederations, and their constituent organizations - and, therefore, the national member associations, national teams, youth leagues, and development programs that rely on financial support from their parent organizations - of the full value of those rights. In addition, the schemes had powerful anti-competitive effects, distorting the market for the commercial rights associated with soccer and undermining the ability of other sports marketing companies to compete for such rights on terms more favorable to the rights­ 30 holders. Finally, the schemes deprived FIFA, the confederations, and their constituent organizations of their right to the honest and loyal services of the soccer officials involved. Over time, and in the aggregate, such deprivations inflicted significant reputational harm on the victimized institutions, damaging their prospects for attracting conscientious members and leaders and limiting their ability to operate effectively and carry out their core missions. ” — United States of America, Indictment 15 CR 0252 (RJD)(RML), pg. 30

damiens.rf 15:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

motivation

What still bothers me is why is the U.S. worried about overseas corruption cases mostly affecting foreign institutions....--damiens.rf 15:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Did the US say something publicly about its motivation? (It might be soft power: several Western countries have a co-ordinated anti-corruption agenda.) If so, we could include it in the article. Or you could edit the article to emphasize that financial transactions took place in the US, that the alleged acts disadvantaged athletes in the US, and that the indictment names at least one US citizen (who plead guilty). More about motivation will probably come to light as the case progresses through the courts. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Motivation was simple: US and England were salty because they weren't awarded the Worlds Cups they felt entitled too, despite playing the game just like Russia and Qatar did. All this anti-corruption bullshit is just the West getting on their high horse and playing moral police like they always do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.48.118.15 (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Russia says it did not pay bribes.[1] If you have reliable sources that say which countries paid bribes, we could update the article. Your other point is already made in the article (citing Yahoo! Sport). --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

POV article when no don't mention this is basically american imperialism 173.179.38.104 (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Article makes no sense chronologically and is hard to follow

The current "Allegations" section is a muddled mess that mixes up events in 2013, 2011, and 2015 in a way that makes no sense. The more logical sequence would be to start with the investigation which began in August 2011, according to this New York Times article and then develop the narrative in chronological order from there. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. TheBigJagielka (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 31 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 57 11:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

---

2015 FIFA corruption case → Department of Justice investigation into corruption within FIFA – 1.)There are several investigations into FIFA, this helps determine which specific investigation the article is about. 2.)The year 2015 is not needed as there were arrests in 2013 and information was being passed to investigators in 2009. 3.) I think "corruption within FIFA" as opposed to "FIFA corruption" is more suitable. So far those FIFA officials arrested were using their influence within their continental football body or had links to someone who did. Those positions within FIFA are automatically given to those who have positions of power within their own continent. TheBigJagielka (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not sure the current title is the best one for the topic but I don't think the proposed one is an improvement. For one, it's no longer just an investigation because there have been indictments. Second, the investigation also involved the IRS, which isn't part of the DoJ. Third, it's unnecessarily long. I'd be open to other suggestions, but I think it might be best to wait. Calidum T|C 15:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Calidum; a better title might be possible, but that isn't it. Edwardx (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose so far When I created this page I realised that the eventual title should probably be United States v. [name] and would support a move to such a page when the time comes. The present title is misleading though, as this present case (and the Swiss case) have their origins in the collapse of ISL and the various shenanigans under Havelange. I can't for the life of me untangle them all to my satisfaction. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Things are moving fast and the UK and Australian authorities are also now involved. Await developments. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose No one refers to this as the "Department of Justice investigation..." per WP:COMMONNAME. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Await developments. There might be a better name for the article; "Department of Justice investigation into corruption within FIFA" isn't one of them. Canuck^{89 (what's up?)} 09:44, June 1, 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The title as it sits works well for now, pending the results of the investigation and, since there have been claims of corruption within FIFA previously, I'd leave the 2015 date as part of the title. The fact that there is a Swiss investigation that runs alongside the US Dept. of Justice one would cause more confusion if we had two pages for the two investigations; at the moment we're probably best sticking to a single page covering the two. DAAdshead (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The problem is that this is not about US deparment of justice. but about fifa, on 2015 and the investigations and acusations are not just from US but also from several countries including for example Argentina ( [2] ). if may or may not be from USA and want to search for info regarding this, you will use the keywords for the google search that looks similar to this "2015 fifa corruption" or "when?, where?, what?" so the current "2015 Fifa corruption case" is prety simple and to the point. IMHO there is no need to change it. --WiZaRd SaiLoR (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Alternative titles

• International intervention against FIFA in 2015 / Legal intervention against FIFA in 2015 ? GregKaye 12:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• FIFA corruption case; the fact that it happened in 2015 doesn't really matter, it isn't an annual eventJoeykai (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• 2015 FIFA Corruption Investigation / 2015 FIFA Bribery Investigation / 2015 FIFA Bribery/Corruption Arrests? DAAdshead (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Fifagate? 132.3.53.80 (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

FIFA bans

The article should probably include those banned by FIFA in the aftermath of the indictments: today Enrique Sanz, general secretary of Concacaf and Congolese Football Vice-president Jean Guy Blaise Mayolas and general secretary Badji Mombo Wantete[3] It may need a new section as they have not been indicted. Rmhermen (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

American date format

I guess since Americans led the investigation, a FIFA article is (suprisingly) using American date format.—Bagumba (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

That's the exact reason; the article was started by an American court case so it has strong ties to the U.S. And for the record, the first date was in MDY format anyway. Calidum T|C 19:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Meh. That would be akin to calling for British English in American Revolutionary War because they initiated it. At any rate, others can !vote or this can remain status quo.—Bagumba (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Except that's not at all the case here. Calidum T|C 03:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that's it's a bad example. Unlike the War everything the main events of the story (the investigation, future trials, etc) is not talking in a foreign country, as would be the case if we used British English for the revolutionary War.--64.229.165.154 (talk) 06:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I say the status quo is fine. Per WP:DATERET, the article has evolved using mdy dates and American English. No real reason to change it now. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 22:14, June 2, 2015 (UTC)

More errors that need to be fixed

Don't have time to fix them, just wanted to point them out.

It looks like from the news coverage that Chuck Blazer was first investigated in 2011, pleaded guilty in November 2013, and the transcript of his plea bargain hearing was unsealed in June 2015. The article is a total mess right now with respect to those events. For example, it's clear that User:Cj005257 mistook the 2015 unsealing of the transcript with when Blazer actually gave his allocution in court, which was in 2013.

Also, a lot of the breathless news coverage is being published by international journalists who don't understand the U.S. legal system; it's important to cite to domestic news coverage by American journalists who have a better grasp on the legal documents they are reading. For example, the reason why the allocution exchange has all these funny tangents like where Blazer keeps admitting that he took a check through JFK Airport is that the U.S. federal government lacks plenary jurisdiction or general police power. See United States v. Lopez (1995). To show jurisdiction (if the U.S. Attorney had gone forward with an indictment), the government has to prove facts that showed Blazer was doing something that implicates federal jurisdiction, like federally regulated banks or airports. Conversely, for the court to accept his plea bargain (where he confessed on an information in lieu of an indictment), he has to actually confess to facts like that. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about that. When I made that edit there were very few details at that time beyond the fact that he had pled guilty and news sources weren't aware at that time that Blazer had actually entered the plea earlier. Maybe I should have sourced the original release from the court rather than a news site here in the UK. CJ ^{Drop me a line! • Contribs} 20:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What is FIFA, asks the reader?

Somehow the lede needs to tell the reader what FIFA is. Here's a start: [4]. Is that the right way to phrase it? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 01:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is an important addition. "the world governing body for football" would be even better in my opinion, but I won't quibble. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hroðulf - if that's better please go for it; I have zero preference. I almost put it that way, but wasn't sure if "football (soccer)" implicitly covers "association football (soccer), futsal and beach soccer", due to my being lamentably topic-illiterate when the topic is sports. Let alone sports governing bodies. cheers --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 07:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

1. Thanks for those interesting links. Futsal and beach soccer are just types of association football, also governed by FIFA, but they aren't in the World Cup or publicly linked to the corruption case, so I don't think they are noteworthy in this article.
2. The slightly more thorny issue is the other football codes with their own national or international federations, totally separate from FIFA: American, Australian, rugby and Gaelic, for example. (Not Olympic sports, and definitely not soccer.) If you read an article that mentioned football in the first paragraph, and then linked to association football (soccer) in the second, would that be enough to set the article in context without cluttering the lede with detail that distracts a more knowledgeable general reader? I will put my version of that in the article.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's clarify the status column in the indictment table

The table at 2015 FIFA corruption case#Indicted individuals and corporations is already confusing for the reader, and likely to get more so. Currently the status column lists 'guilty plea', 'arrested' and 'indicted'. I suggest that this table only covers whether or not they were indicted, and perhaps a column for a verdict. I think arrests, bails, custody, extradition, appeals etc. are too complex for a table and so are better dealt with in prose. Let's delete the 'status' column.

Also, were those who plead guilty before the indictment actually indicted, and if not is there a clearer way to list them?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the table. We don't need to get very complex; currently it just lists "arrested", "guilty plea", or "fugitive". Also, to be clear everyone in the table has been indicted, so using the table solely for that purpose would be redundant. – Zntrip 15:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 26 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. DrKiernan (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

---

2015 FIFA corruption case → FIFAgate –

Context: "[...the FIFA corruption scandal has] earnt its ‘gate’, the suffix for a serious scandal in which powerful men fall from great heights." From the same source:

So when does a scandal magically transform into a ‘gate’? It’s probably a combination of the following:

1. When a scandal solidifies in the public consciousness, which means it is force fed to us across all media platforms incessantly, hour after hour, update after update, tweet after tweet, day after day.
2. When it involves a president and/or a sexual misdemeanour and/or a lot of money
3. When a president is forced to resign

However, I am not advocating this move because of some subjective, WP:OR-based preference. Whether it is or isn't a -gate is not our job to ponder over.

I believe we agree the current name is rather awkward. It is not concise, unlikely to be searched for (it has some 15 close variations), and not even all that recognizable ("FIFA corruption" or "FIFA scandal" is all they search for). Google Trends can evidently support the proposed name's greater recognizability. It can also quite clearly be observed that "FIFAgate" garnered no interest prior to the scandal. It wasn't just the corruption, nor just the case, that were focused up in the course of the scandal. Many related ethical aspects — professional football organization, trust in FIFA, the US's controversial authoritive action, and the coverage of it all — arguably play a role in the controvery. Proposed name is also a tad more neutral (law-wise), with remaining objections being covered by WP:POVNAME.
Discuss. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The gate suffix is tabloid-esque attention grabbing low-brow naming. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Even if it was truly as frightening to use as you say; we use concise and recognizable terms that are popular among the general public, don't you agree? Even in the way you describe it that would actually sound perfectly appropriate. Many incidents are primarily known in their -gate-form anyhow. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This nomination is the very first time I've encountered the term "FIFAgate", so it's unlikely to be the most common term for this scandal. If it is so, please provide examples of actual use in sources, rather than only fallible Google trends charts. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that this is best known by the proposed therm. it seems odd since the article does not even mention the term.--64.229.165.154 (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This is the sort of title we use for events in the news that don't have a single well-established name. The lack of such a name is not a point in support of your proposed title, but rather the opposite. Again, if "FIFAgate" is in common use, please give some examples of it in use. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose "-gate" is a US politics term, and FIFA has very little to do with the U.S., even though the U.S. authorities lead the charge sheet; soccer is not well known in the U.S. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Please review WP's core policies. This is a no-brainer. As in no, no, no. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Notes

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

16 more officials charged

Someone please update this article with new information.

16 more officials have since been charged as of December 3, 2015.

"The 16 new defendants charged were: Alfredo Hawit; Ariel Alvarado; Rafael Callejas; Brayan Jiménez; Rafael Salguero; Héctor Trujillo; Reynaldo Vasquez; Juan Ángel Napout; Manuel Burga; Carlos Chávez; Luís Chiriboga; Marco Polo del Nero; Eduardo Deluca; José Luis Meiszner; Romer Osuna; and Ricardo Teixeira."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/sports/soccer/fifa-scandal-16-more-charged-after-zurich-raid.html

TheHoax (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Peter K Burian

Added names of the 16 charged AND of those convicted

Added a great deal of content, in quotation marks, from the official Department of Justice Web site. I hope this is OK to do on Wikipedia since it is from an Information site, not from a newspaper.Peter K Burian 21:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm.. perhaps such information should be in the form of a chart, like the one that is in this section: Indicted individuals and corporations ... but I do not know how to create such charts. Perhaps a more experienced editor will do so, using the citation I had provided (Department of Justice lists.) Peter K Burian 21:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Panama Papers

This is an on-going event -> Panama Papers. But should be mentioned in this article as a bunch of people are linked. --207.172.184.157 (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Alfredo Hawit pleads guilty in bribery scandal

Former FIFA soccer official pleads guilty in bribery scandal --Anttipng (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Last month Rafael Callejas, a former president of Honduras and member of FIFA's television and marketing committee, also pleaded guilty to racketeering conspiracy and wire fraud conspiracy in a Brooklyn courtroom. " From the same article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anttipng (talk • contribs) 17:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2015 FIFA corruption case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150529074952/http://thecostaricanews.com/costa-rica-prosecutors-open-investigation-into-fifa-arrest-of-official-eduardo-li to http://thecostaricanews.com/costa-rica-prosecutors-open-investigation-into-fifa-arrest-of-official-eduardo-li
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150528032353/http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/29164956/the-latest-us-corruption-allegations-not-tied-to-fifa-vote to http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/29164956/the-latest-us-corruption-allegations-not-tied-to-fifa-vote
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150528011903/http://www.federalnewsradio.com/614/3864517/THE-LATEST-Trinidad-issues-arrest-warrant-for-Jack-Warner to http://www.federalnewsradio.com/614/3864517/THE-LATEST-Trinidad-issues-arrest-warrant-for-Jack-Warner

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"banned from all football-related activity"

A sentence like "banned from all football-related activity" is an example of the megalomania of people involved in sports organisations. Nobody has the authority to ban anyone "from all football-related activity". Sure, they can ban people from activity organised by their own organisation, but that is not the same as a "ban from all football-related activity". FIFA is a private organisation, nothing else (even though they like to think otherwise). And they don't have a monopoly on football. --Tataral (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Christopher Steele

Some useful material in [5], about Christopher Steele's involvement in investigating corruption in FIFA. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)