FIFA is not a public institution, it's a private association. How a private club wants to structure payments is entirely up to them. So how will any bribery charges stick, unless public officials have been paid off?
Can't believe Blatter and his cronies would be so stupid, but perhaps some of the weaker and greedier executives were, so Blatter is happy to serve them up?
> FIFA is not a public institution, it's a private association. How a private club wants to structure payments is entirely up to them.
The bribery charges aren't about payments to FIFA, they are about payments (for instance) that constitute fraud against FIFA (and various other subordinate soccer organizations, among others) as an organization. [0] In some cases, these are frauds that were being investigated when the relevant officials resigned from FIFA (ending the FIFA investigations, but not retroactively negating the fraud.)
While organizations current executives may have power over the organization, they aren't legally indistinguishable from the organization.
> Can't believe Blatter and his cronies would be so stupid
Its not uncommon for powerful people with a tendency to corruption to be, or become after years of smaller transgressions not seeming to have consequences, arrogant enough to commit major transgressions that authorities are willing and able to prosecute.
Authorities accused Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the IMF, of raping a maid in a New York hotel and made him do the perp walk in front of the cameras. What happened in the end? Career ruined but all charges dropped.
> Authorities accused Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the IMF, of raping a maid in a New York hotel and made him do the perp walk in front of the cameras. What happened in the end?
Well, the "end" is hard to assess. What has happened so far is a series of investigations begun and dropped over various sex-related crimes until the current set for "aggravated pimping" for which he was tried this past February with the verdict to be read in June.
Would you have rather they hadn't indicted and charged a man accused of rape, where there was (as I understand it) DNA evidence suggesting a sexual encounter had taken place?
