Are you all saying that the ref is part of a regionwide conspiracy? That concacaf wants him to make that call there? If not, then give the guy a break. Officiating is hard, and who knows what he is thinking there. Oduro was flopping all over the field all night, maybe it had something to do with that. Maybe the ref judged his last touch before the foul to have put him out of range of a scoring chance. Who knows maybe he just messed up which we all do. I have a hard time believing that concacaf is instructing its refs to call games against the americans.
No, not at all. There is corruption but that's not it's goal and not how it works. Association officials' primary goals are to make sure that events are successful in that they make money for the association (being profitable for the host country, stadium owner, etc is irrelevant) and that they, the officials are highly compensated in the process. They go to a lot of parties, travel the world, and never pay for anything themselves. Other problems are only a priority if they interfere with this primary purpose of the association.
Meanwhile, officiating is hard, as you note, and policing game officials is even harder. So if a game official is clearly intimidated by local conditions and calls a game accordingly, let it go as long as no on gets hurt and the association's bottom line is not hurt. Hey, it's just controversy, right? That's almost a positive! Any energies spent on that take away from the main goal, which is that the international lifestyle of high-ranking officials be maintained. If a local host fails to enforce FIFA rules on laser pointers, well, that's a shame but again, not the point.
Conceptually, the corruption is an extreme example of the
Principal-Agent problem or
Agency Costs. The textbook examples of this are when management of a company acts in management's interest instead of the shareholders, or government insiders act for their own benefit instead of the public. As tough as those problems are to solve, at least companies and governments have some accountability to shareholders and voters who should have an interest in policing matters. It's even worse for non-profit entities whose theoretical
Principal is not shareholders, or voters, but an ideal, whether it be improving the environment reducing poverty, or what not. Because ideals cannot act on their own behalf and police the insiders. And while lots of non-profits do great stuff, some are basically fiefdoms run for the benefit of the insiders, with no need to produce a profit, show results, or answer to voters or shareholders, or the SEC or anything. And the worst sorts of non-profits in this regards are ones that don't even rely on donations, but have a product to sell, like sports. Because donors can be bamboozled but once they do catch on they will stop giving. But where else can you g to get your international soccer fix?
Here the theoretical Principal of Football Associations is football/soccer itself, and the sport cannot defend itself. You see the same exact thing in Olympic committees.