Otherwise it is pretty much as I wrote it, with a couple of I think telling omissions.The first came with the mention of Prince William appearing in Chuck's blog. What I had actually written at that point was:
alongside those (pictures) of
Blazer with British royalty and football stars. 'Royalty treated him
like royalty,' an anonymous colleague told the New York Daily News,
'because they wanted to host the World Cup and were slavering for the
money that could be made buying and selling the beautiful game'.
This
was a reference to the failed British bid for the World Cup, which
crashed amidst a 'fury,' as the tabloids would have it, of accusations of
bribery. Which turned out to be true, but probably didn't actually take
the event away from Britain anyway. But the idea royals could be
portrayed as slavering for money was apparently beyond the pale.
The second was at the end, in the mention of his survivors. There I wrote:Blazer is survived by his son Jason, a physio therapist who served as CONCACAF's head of medicine, and his daughter Marci, a lawyer who served on FIFA's legal committee.
I thought that the mention of their positions within world football was a telling point to make, for obvious nepotistic reasons. It wasn't the only case in FIFA history, that's for sure, including Sepp's nephew the travel agent. The paper also had some doubt about his cause of death. When he was hospitalized in 2015, it was reported as colon cancer. His lawyer's statement about his death said he died of rectal cancer. I didn't think those were contradictory, nor that the colonic confusion was a cause for omission.
No comments :
Post a Comment