> Whenever a story appears to be such clear cut black and white with one evil villain

Whoever said there was one evil villain? Note that while Blatter may be implicated in the corruption investigation, one of the specific schemes already charged was an attempt to use bribes to motivate people to vote for Blatter's opponent in a previous FIFA election.

This doesn't look as much like a hierarchical conspiracy with one bad actor at the top, as a whole nest of -- sometimes cooperating, sometimes competing -- bad actors.

Blatter's strategy was usually too go against the UEFA, the European soccer confederation and the most powerful continental confederation. For example, he championed the South African World Cup bid for 2010. ( After the UEFA managed to get the 2006 cup for Germany.) And he presides over a remarkable increase in the importance of soccer.

So he gets reelected, because he is actually quite successful and has a clearly defined voter base. This base may or may not like the corruption, but that is simply not their main concern.

I suspect he was at least complicit. One other side of the story is this: Why does the US care? The answer is that if getting the World Cup essentially requires bribes then that makes it impossible for the US to compete, because bribery is prosecuted in the US. So this is less about justice than economic benefit.

It's FIFA regime change.

Sometimes evil villains simply are evil villains. Septics? ;)

skeptics?

One would hope. Though within the context of corruption septics might be applicable.

His name is Sepp Blatter, may have been an awful pun.

Sepp-tics?