I agree. I've been researching a bit about the AKC and CKC and what I am finding is really disturbing. They are waaay to lenient with the breeders, or at least that is what it seems like to me. Not to mention they don't seem to really be for the benefit of the dog, which is just sad.
FCI is not perfect either and they are most certainly just as guilty when it comes to cruel breed standards but my issues with them weren't as big (I used to be a member and worked for them as a trainer back in Europe) since it seems they are at least trying to move in the direction that benefits the dogs and not the people. For example with ear cropping and tail docking which is illegal in most member countries and there is definitely a strong push to make it illegal in any member country.

I also read that the collie who won best in breed was sired by a dog who was deaf and blind because of hereditary issues and that is is apparently just perfectly ok with the AKC! This sire was apparently never even shown, so I do not understand how he would even be allowed to breed within the club? What is the point of a club if it doesn't regulate the breeders more?
From what I know of the FCI is that a dog needs a minimum of two second best in breed in order to get a breeding certificate. Now, I am not saying that this can't also be misused and I don't personally think that showing always is the best way to see if a dog is a good candidate for breeding... but at least by requiring a minimum of winning (or second place, as it is ) in the show ring, you eliminate dogs with obvious defects and hopefully also some with more subtle lack of standard.

I dunno. I don't want to come across like I am bashing the AKC/CKC and praising the FCI but like I mentioned before, I just happened to have been researching a bit about the AKC in particular and am very surprised with the differences.