5 ms·

Why is it, that whenever there is a FIFA WC or Olympics, that there seems to be ties to organized crime, poor working conditions, bribery and so on, but nothing

Why is it, that whenever there is a FIFA WC or Olympics, that there seems to be ties to organized crime, poor working conditions, bribery and so on, but nothing ever happens, the games go through (every time) and everybody is watching, what is just a show of "panem et circenses". Why do "modern" societies accept these kinds of festivities, with all what is surrounding them?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
baddox 12y ago
It's a fairly vague question, but an interesting one from an economic or game theoretical perspective. I suppose the concept of "a modern society accepting" something is nothing more than the aggregate of millions of individuals' choices, and very few individuals are capable of significantly changing anything about the way governments or very large organizations operate. Making matters worse, the benefit of any small change an individual can make is shared among millions of other individuals. Thus "good society" is a public good (at least when the society is governed by a democratic state), and like any public good, it is prone to being underproduced.
drinchev 12y ago
That's a question I've been asking myself a lot while I talk with my family. I think there are two possible reasons : 1. There is big conspiracy between organized crime and governments on a worldwide level, which conclude in mutual help ( government <-> organized crime ) 2. The rate of bribes and illegal business deals are overrated by media and actually there isn't such a thing as "massive corruption practices". Those both reasons are part of what I figured out as the "conspiracy paradox", which ( ironically ) is again based on two statements : 1. There isn't any large conspiracy theory existing, because there is a statistically significant change of a whistleblower to come out and speak about that. 2. Statement 1 is equally true ( Edward Snowden ) and false ( Other unrevealed whistleblowers ).
- tgbrfv 12y ago
  You should really research & pick your "world axioms" wisely, if done so you wouldn't see paradoxes where there are none. There is currently no way for a whistleblower to publish any information that powers on different levels don't want him to publish. That naive "hollywoody" view that you just send some information to all major news outlets/police/your representative(s) and things somehow change for the best .. how many dead whistleblowers because of this 24/7 reinforced naive world view will it take, so much fakery and people are still in the dark(would expect more from this community - although I understand the temptation to fall for every false hero/honeypot organistation our powers throw at you in this medieval society)
hrktb 12y ago
> Why do "modern" societies accept these kinds of festivities, with all what is surrounding them? The question can be widen to 'Why do "modern" society still include organized crime, poor working conditions, bribery and so on'. The non glamorous, pragmatic answer is that these people turn to these "out of the system" groups for things that are not possible or acceptable within the official set of rules. When will we have a "modern" society where people don't try to circumvent society rules ? Well... Actually, we could view it as hacking around morality and social rules. And we know some people will always have an itch for hacking things.
andrewksl 12y ago
The same reasons any number of atrocities are committed without so much as a blip on our consciousness: Ignorance and apathy. We're pretty limited beings :).
nl 12y ago
The London Olympics didn't seem to have any particularly corrupt influences during its organisation. Is it possible that the people on the FIFA and Olympic committees reflect the country and society they inhabit?
- gaius 12y ago
  The social cleansing of East London was swept under the carpet. Also remember that the original budget for the games was £2Bn, this spiralled to £10Bn at least. Where did that money go?
  - nl 12y ago
    I think the cleansing was anything-but-swept under the carpet. It was boasted about as a good outcome. I'm not sure all would agree with that, but I don't think it was hidden. I'm only aware of the £10b estimate. The places that was spent can be explored here: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/13/olympics-2012-government-data http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/13/olympic...
    - venomsnake 12y ago
      > I'm not sure all would agree with that, but I don't think it was hidden. In the modern media cycle anything that is not actively pushed into view is hidden. - What is going on with ebola? Did the epidemic suddenly stopped. - What is going on with CIA torture? - What is going on with the jet shot over Ukraine ... And these are big ticket items that got lots of coverage. The terrible working conditions in Quatar for the world cup has been thoroughly exposed. People read, are shocked and forget. For a news to be hidden today - you don't need to actively cover up - just to find something else for the attention of the public for the time being.
  - somewhatoff 12y ago
    Yes, it's awful how East London got great new transport links, sporting facilities and a huge park.
- dghughes 12y ago
parados 12y ago
I think that it is merely a consequence of when you have a small number of people that get a huge benefit which is paid by the rest of society contributing just a little each. It is greatly in the interest of the smaller group to continue this by whatever means, even criminal ones. It is not really in the interest of the rest of society to end this because, as individuals, they contribute very little and it would take a huge effort to stop paying. You get the same effect when, for example, governments subsidise an industry such as agriculture. A tiny group benefits (and lobbies for this to continue) but the cost to the rest of society is individually quite small, for example in Europe around EUR 5-10/person/week.
- hga 12y ago
  This is one of the things covered by public choice theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice#Special_interests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice#Special_interest...
- trhway 12y ago
  >A tiny group benefits (and lobbies for this to continue) but the cost to the rest of society is individually quite small, for example in Europe around EUR 5-10/person/week. and your individual power to affect things is even smaller than that. Add to that that corrupting a multi-billion project results in the huge payoff to the participants where is successfully defending a project against corruption results in no payoff to the ones fighting against the corruption. Thus money and power is on the side of the former.
- sdoering 12y ago
  Thanks, read this once in (I believe) Freakonomics (regarding protective tariffs on sugar in the US), but did not get the connection. Your comment opened my eyes - so thanks a lot for putting my thoughts on the right track.
Intermernet 12y ago
Because the "average person" neither cares, nor knows that these shenanigans go on. The "Olympics" brand creates a predisposition amongst most people to assume nobility, honour and "sportsmanship". This is what brands are designed to do, and they've done it brilliantly.
- disputin 12y ago
  Exactly. Heads in the clouds, or heads in the sand. The sport world is rife with corruption, the big events are scams, and half the participants are doping. I won't miss robots replacing this lot.
  - npizzolato 12y ago
    Or, less cynically, heads in their own world. People don't have the time to learn and care about everything. They're much more concerned about things going on in their immediate life, on their local city, on their state, and on their nation. What the major news outlets reports on also has a big influence here, and coverage of the olympics also tends to focus on the athletes, not on the olympic committee. As a result, I'm pretty sure what goes into creating the olympics generally ranks pretty far down on the list of people's priorities.
  - Squarel 12y ago
    It is not just sports, we all ignore things, whether it be working conditions of those producing our goods, the environmental impact of the overseas factories, the suppression of unions by corporations in various parts of the world. We do not, for whatever reason, act on the information we have. Example: A documentary was widely watched here showing child labor and dangerous conditions involved in obtaining the materials for mobile phone components. Do you think this changed the purchasing patterns of those who use mobile phones and watched the program?
    - TillE 12y ago
      > Do you think this changed the purchasing patterns of those who use mobile phones and watched the program? You have to actually give people ethical alternatives before they're able to meaningfully change their buying habits. "Fair trade" is a real thing for many products, as well as labor and environmental certification (eg, UTZ). Not everyone will care, but that number is certainly more than zero. The problem is that all major electronics manufacturers are some degree of awful.
Agustus 12y ago
Egos are the origination of they why it can occur. Start with a municipality or country leader looking for ways to cement their "legacy." The leader will identify projects in which their name will can be associated to keep them in the forefront of the people using the people's monies. Be it fixed rail, stadium construction for a private team, or putting on an Olymipic event, the leader needs to fulfill their desire to do something. Once the project, let us use the Olympics, are whispered as a possibility, an exploratory probe is performed; probes can cost anywhere from $100,000 to $1,000,000 as they include analyses of existing facilities and requirements. Elected officials are excited because there is a remote possibility that the Olymipics could be hosted and sign off on the small funds. Bidding takes a couple of million to draw up plans for the facility deficiencies and shuttle the IOC team around the city; the leader gets to hob nob with the IOC team, press photos, other elected officials get to bask in the glow from local newspaper reports. After the national selection, your city needs to be selected to represent the nation, you move on to global selection committee. Repeat the process and you are looking at $16 million dollars for a successful bid, Salt Lake City was the last American Olympic bid I could find. If you cannot finance this undertaking you need to find investors willing to finance the program; criminal rings are perfect as they can provide liquid assets and assist with the process by leaning on their contacts. The risk management for the criminal entities: * Failure to achieve Olympics, still have a leader to approach when the organization needs assistance with an issue, good result * Success to achieve Olympics, the leader has favored companies to go to for projects during the bid construction process, further cementing the organizations grip, great result. The United States has the funds at the federal level to contribute to the Olympic proposals after selection is won. Reference: I was a periphery in the bidding process.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

baddox 12y ago

It's a fairly vague question, but an interesting one from an economic or game theoretical perspective. I suppose the concept of "a modern society accepting" something is nothing more than the aggregate of millions of individuals' choices, and very few individuals are capable of significantly changing anything about the way governments or very large organizations operate. Making matters worse, the benefit of any small change an individual can make is shared among millions of other individuals. Thus "good society" is a public good (at least when the society is governed by a democratic state), and like any public good, it is prone to being underproduced.

drinchev 12y ago

That's a question I've been asking myself a lot while I talk with my family. I think there are two possible reasons : 1. There is big conspiracy between organized crime and governments on a worldwide level, which conclude in mutual help ( government <-> organized crime ) 2. The rate of bribes and illegal business deals are overrated by media and actually there isn't such a thing as "massive corruption practices". Those both reasons are part of what I figured out as the "conspiracy paradox", which ( ironically ) is again based on two statements : 1. There isn't any large conspiracy theory existing, because there is a statistically significant change of a whistleblower to come out and speak about that. 2. Statement 1 is equally true ( Edward Snowden ) and false ( Other unrevealed whistleblowers ).

tgbrfv 12y ago
You should really research & pick your "world axioms" wisely, if done so you wouldn't see paradoxes where there are none. There is currently no way for a whistleblower to publish any information that powers on different levels don't want him to publish. That naive "hollywoody" view that you just send some information to all major news outlets/police/your representative(s) and things somehow change for the best .. how many dead whistleblowers because of this 24/7 reinforced naive world view will it take, so much fakery and people are still in the dark(would expect more from this community - although I understand the temptation to fall for every false hero/honeypot organistation our powers throw at you in this medieval society)

hrktb 12y ago

> Why do "modern" societies accept these kinds of festivities, with all what is surrounding them? The question can be widen to 'Why do "modern" society still include organized crime, poor working conditions, bribery and so on'. The non glamorous, pragmatic answer is that these people turn to these "out of the system" groups for things that are not possible or acceptable within the official set of rules. When will we have a "modern" society where people don't try to circumvent society rules ? Well... Actually, we could view it as hacking around morality and social rules. And we know some people will always have an itch for hacking things.

andrewksl 12y ago

The same reasons any number of atrocities are committed without so much as a blip on our consciousness: Ignorance and apathy. We're pretty limited beings :).

nl 12y ago

The London Olympics didn't seem to have any particularly corrupt influences during its organisation. Is it possible that the people on the FIFA and Olympic committees reflect the country and society they inhabit?

gaius 12y ago
The social cleansing of East London was swept under the carpet. Also remember that the original budget for the games was £2Bn, this spiralled to £10Bn at least. Where did that money go?
- nl 12y ago
  I think the cleansing was anything-but-swept under the carpet. It was boasted about as a good outcome. I'm not sure all would agree with that, but I don't think it was hidden. I'm only aware of the £10b estimate. The places that was spent can be explored here: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/13/olympics-2012-government-data http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/13/olympic...
  - venomsnake 12y ago
    > I'm not sure all would agree with that, but I don't think it was hidden. In the modern media cycle anything that is not actively pushed into view is hidden. - What is going on with ebola? Did the epidemic suddenly stopped. - What is going on with CIA torture? - What is going on with the jet shot over Ukraine ... And these are big ticket items that got lots of coverage. The terrible working conditions in Quatar for the world cup has been thoroughly exposed. People read, are shocked and forget. For a news to be hidden today - you don't need to actively cover up - just to find something else for the attention of the public for the time being.
- somewhatoff 12y ago
  Yes, it's awful how East London got great new transport links, sporting facilities and a huge park.
dghughes 12y ago

parados 12y ago

I think that it is merely a consequence of when you have a small number of people that get a huge benefit which is paid by the rest of society contributing just a little each. It is greatly in the interest of the smaller group to continue this by whatever means, even criminal ones. It is not really in the interest of the rest of society to end this because, as individuals, they contribute very little and it would take a huge effort to stop paying. You get the same effect when, for example, governments subsidise an industry such as agriculture. A tiny group benefits (and lobbies for this to continue) but the cost to the rest of society is individually quite small, for example in Europe around EUR 5-10/person/week.

hga 12y ago
This is one of the things covered by public choice theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice#Special_interests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice#Special_interest...
trhway 12y ago
>A tiny group benefits (and lobbies for this to continue) but the cost to the rest of society is individually quite small, for example in Europe around EUR 5-10/person/week. and your individual power to affect things is even smaller than that. Add to that that corrupting a multi-billion project results in the huge payoff to the participants where is successfully defending a project against corruption results in no payoff to the ones fighting against the corruption. Thus money and power is on the side of the former.
sdoering 12y ago
Thanks, read this once in (I believe) Freakonomics (regarding protective tariffs on sugar in the US), but did not get the connection. Your comment opened my eyes - so thanks a lot for putting my thoughts on the right track.

Intermernet 12y ago

Because the "average person" neither cares, nor knows that these shenanigans go on. The "Olympics" brand creates a predisposition amongst most people to assume nobility, honour and "sportsmanship". This is what brands are designed to do, and they've done it brilliantly.

disputin 12y ago
Exactly. Heads in the clouds, or heads in the sand. The sport world is rife with corruption, the big events are scams, and half the participants are doping. I won't miss robots replacing this lot.
- npizzolato 12y ago
  Or, less cynically, heads in their own world. People don't have the time to learn and care about everything. They're much more concerned about things going on in their immediate life, on their local city, on their state, and on their nation. What the major news outlets reports on also has a big influence here, and coverage of the olympics also tends to focus on the athletes, not on the olympic committee. As a result, I'm pretty sure what goes into creating the olympics generally ranks pretty far down on the list of people's priorities.
- Squarel 12y ago
  It is not just sports, we all ignore things, whether it be working conditions of those producing our goods, the environmental impact of the overseas factories, the suppression of unions by corporations in various parts of the world. We do not, for whatever reason, act on the information we have. Example: A documentary was widely watched here showing child labor and dangerous conditions involved in obtaining the materials for mobile phone components. Do you think this changed the purchasing patterns of those who use mobile phones and watched the program?
  - TillE 12y ago
    > Do you think this changed the purchasing patterns of those who use mobile phones and watched the program? You have to actually give people ethical alternatives before they're able to meaningfully change their buying habits. "Fair trade" is a real thing for many products, as well as labor and environmental certification (eg, UTZ). Not everyone will care, but that number is certainly more than zero. The problem is that all major electronics manufacturers are some degree of awful.

Agustus 12y ago

Egos are the origination of they why it can occur. Start with a municipality or country leader looking for ways to cement their "legacy." The leader will identify projects in which their name will can be associated to keep them in the forefront of the people using the people's monies. Be it fixed rail, stadium construction for a private team, or putting on an Olymipic event, the leader needs to fulfill their desire to do something. Once the project, let us use the Olympics, are whispered as a possibility, an exploratory probe is performed; probes can cost anywhere from $100,000 to $1,000,000 as they include analyses of existing facilities and requirements. Elected officials are excited because there is a remote possibility that the Olymipics could be hosted and sign off on the small funds. Bidding takes a couple of million to draw up plans for the facility deficiencies and shuttle the IOC team around the city; the leader gets to hob nob with the IOC team, press photos, other elected officials get to bask in the glow from local newspaper reports. After the national selection, your city needs to be selected to represent the nation, you move on to global selection committee. Repeat the process and you are looking at $16 million dollars for a successful bid, Salt Lake City was the last American Olympic bid I could find. If you cannot finance this undertaking you need to find investors willing to finance the program; criminal rings are perfect as they can provide liquid assets and assist with the process by leaning on their contacts. The risk management for the criminal entities: * Failure to achieve Olympics, still have a leader to approach when the organization needs assistance with an issue, good result * Success to achieve Olympics, the leader has favored companies to go to for projects during the bid construction process, further cementing the organizations grip, great result. The United States has the funds at the federal level to contribute to the Olympic proposals after selection is won. Reference: I was a periphery in the bidding process.