Apologies. I was trying to write two thing at once and St Kitts was the first name I could think of to symbolise a country FA whose finances are largely dependent on FIFA, a situation that makes them particularly prone to outside influence / enticements. There are at least half a dozen members of the executive who satisfy that criteria and you can factor in the relationship between the executive membership and congress which further increases the potential power of special interests inside and outside FIFA to influence decision making. Having said that, looking at the French or Spanish representatives on it hardly inspires confidence and almost certainly contributes to the negative perception of EUFA among other federations. The whole organisation needs to be reformed (very obviously) and out of it needs to come one that is democratic in structure but at the same time recognises the contribution and needs of different nations within it. Its a really good thing that smaller federations receive significant funding from FIFA generated through television deals with broadcasters from wealthier nations but there has to be a better way of ensuring that it ends up encouraging the development of the game rather than lubricating a sporting version of Tammany Hall politics. Factoring in the existence of an infrastructure capable of supporting a world cup should discourage the kind of excess seen in Brazil and Qatar, increase the monies available for disbursement to member nations and recognise the role of 'more established' footballing nations. Creating a transparent regulatory system that is completely independent of FIFA itself with powers to ban countries from hosting or participating in major tournaments, for example, should help ensure more ethical behaviour. Given the nature of football economics beyond FIFA, I don't hold out much hope of this happening.