John Oliver takes on FIFA, wins

John Oliver. FIFA. That is all.

FFA optimistic to a fault, wants World Cup refund from FIFA

Since missing out on the 2022 World Cup in December 2010, the Football Federation of Australia and has remained almost piously silent.  Despite changing chief executives, boasting one of Asia’s best teams, a domestic league that continues to grow and the impending rollout of the new FFA Cup, a knockout competition involving clubs from the A-League and various lower-tier leagues across the country, the Federation’s mantra since late 2010 has been “don’t mention the war”.

Today the war got mentioned like Basil Fawlty. 

This morning, via major benefactor and Chairman Frank Lowy, the FFA requested FIFA pay back the the $43 million spent by the nation on their failed 2022 World Cup bid.  The move results from FIFA tacitly acknowledging that the tournament to be staged in Qatar will almost certainly be played in the northern winter to avoid local temperatures in excess of 40° Celsius.  This understanding is also a significant backtrack on prior statements made by executives both from FIFA and the Qatari bid commission.

With a  new Cup tournament beginning in 2014 and hopes of replacing coach Holger Osieck with someone more personable/charismatic/nurturing – and therefore more expensive – either before or after next year’s Big Dance, that $43 million would really help Australian football.  That half-a-latte chipped in by every Australian constitutes more ready cash than the FFA could ever hope to see again and so would be very handy – especially if Guus Hiddink’s back in the frame (which he’s not).

The reparation request suggests that the FFA wouldn’t have placed the bid had they known that changing tournament dates was possible.  The request is also framed by a particularly murky bid process which is still being “investigated” by FIFA’s ethics committee. 

Even with the obtuse and confused selection method, Chairman Frank Lowy’s position is both optimistic and curious.  Despite – because of? – widespread misgivings as to the integrity behind the bid process, some of the blame for the loss must be placed at the callow nature of Australian football administration.  The FFA entered a competitive bid situation against powers like USA, Qatar and Japan administered by a body with only one hard and fast guiding tenet – money usually talks.  And the Australians’ $43 million is a whisper when compared with what Gulf States are able to bawl.

In retrospect, it’s tough to work out why the FFA ever thought they were anywhere near pole position.

FIFA will not grant the request – why should they?  If they were to recompense their irritated Aussies, then they open themselves up to the lawyer’s best frenemy, precedent.  Any club who felt irked by a hosting decision (and Australia had reasons to be very annoyed indeed) could then expect to request – or sue – the governing body and pocket all or part of what they spent.  This puts the Australian party line on a par with the Ireland requesting to be a 33^rd team at the 2010 World Cup.

It’s somewhat comforting to know that the FFA hasn’t abandoned all of its resentment towards the FIFA executive: Australia was (now, perhaps naïvely) seen as one of the frontrunners to host the tournament yet received only one vote.  But the manifestation of that resentment now makes the FFA an object of footballing derision.  While the sentiments of the FFA represent those of the greater Australian populace, they are far from realistic expectation and have only tenuous legal basis.

When Ireland requested a trip to South Africa, FIFA probably laughed privately before responding with a courteous negative.  Watch them do the same with Australia.

Crazy Grandpa still runs world football

Recent noises from Geneva have suggested that world football’s out-of-touch grandpappy, Sepp Blatter, has focused his attention on staging a Winter World Cup in 2022.

In some weird logic puzzle, this makes sense: the tournament will be held in Qatar, which during the summer boasts an average temperature of 38°.  But given most major leagues operate during the northern winter, this change suggests that he hopes to disrupt league football for a period of at least six weeks in order to hold a tournament at the best time for the host nation.  Whether it is the best time for the players and supporters is still debatable.

Let’s forget – which we obviously shouldn’t – the ridiculousness of FIFA awarding the World Cup to a country that boasts an average summer temperature that would boil Satan’s blood.  Let’s instead briefly list the ramifications of interrupting league schedules for six – but, considering preparation, buildup and friendlies, more likely eight – weeks.

-          European seasons starting in early July 2021 and concluding in late June 2022.

-          No rest before season 2022-23, meaning two Eurasia-seasons are damaged by fatigue rather than just one.

-          Lower performance and more injuries as a result of year-round football.

-          League clubs from Australia to Iceland shorn of their stars and left in limbo.

-          Smaller television revenue for leagues the world over (except in the Americas and Russia).

-          Overkill leads to decreased interest in either the World Cup, the interrupted leagues, or both.

The conundrum does come with the happy bonus of getting to watch Michel Platini simultaneously fume but publicly defend the decision because he wants Blatter’s job.

Sepp Blatter and his FIFA Executive brethren selected Qatar for … reasons?  Whatever the rationale for the executive’s collective decision, it becomes more apparent “reasons” were tied to their gratification rather than that of the sport.  Considering the inherent climate (both environmental and cultural) of the host country, Blatter must now change almost the entirety of football to kind of redress his mistake.

No man should have that much power, and especially not a man like Sepp Blatter.

Short Pitch: Blatter's subconscious bigotry

On Saturday, Kevin-Prince Boateng did a remarkable thing.  We like remarkable things, especially in the face of bigotry.  During the first half of a friendly match against Pro Patria, the Ghanaian forward led his AC Milan teammates in a walk-off after being subjected to racist abuse from a section of the crowd.

The hope is that this could be a major blow in the fight against racism in football and Boateng has received deserved support from all corners.

Except, notably, from FIFA President Sepp Blatter, who suggested that walk-offs were “running away” from racism.  This drew boos from the chorus and for good reason: while the President could have expressed logical reservations at the long-term ramifications of walk-offs, yet again his choice of phrase was not so much unfortunate as downright harmful.  His suggestion that walk-offs were in any way running from racism in part robs any targeted player of some of the power to fight back.

It’s yet another stick with which to beat FIFA’s chief executive.  Not only does he not understand that minorities often face a struggle to get by in football, but with his subconscious bigotry extending from women to the LGBT community and his understanding of the power of racism, it’s becoming even more clear he is a man from a bygone era and completely unsuited to a position of power.

International break? Give me a break!

It’s international week again and, for the fourth time in as many months since the Euros, the football world lets out a collective “meh”.

Today’s friendlies mean nothing to anyone.  Except apparently FIFA, who decided to schedule a round of non-competition internationals to fuel their dual fantasy that International friendlies are as important to crowds as the local stuff.

It’s not that friendlies aren’t important, but poorly timed.  English Premier League clubs have managed eleven league matches each since the season began in August.  By today’s end, we will have seen seven international matches.   Joe Hart, the England goalkeeper, has already played 26 matches since June.

In November, you can be certain of three things: that some domestic seasons are just getting interesting (like the English Premiership or the A-League, where league saviour Alessandro Del Piero’s coach has just resigned), that playoffs are in full swing (as with the Asian Champions League and MLS) and that Chelsea  have begun their annual holiday.

In arranging this new slate of games, FIFA’s reasoning is almost sound.  They finds themselves trapped in a corner of a world demanding constant attention: with a six month break between matches, the administrators risk the International game being even further overshadowed by local affairs.   It’s not too long a bow to draw to suggest a random football fan from Jamaica, Uzbekistan or Egypt knows more about this year’s UEFA Champions League machinations than their home nation’s last friendly result.  Their half-baked solution?  More international football.

The fact is that the marketplace is flooded with football.  You’d think the market is so large that flooding it would be something of a logical impossibility, but you’d be wrong.  Almost without exception, every domestic league in the world has operated within the past month; not only were the European Championships this summer, but also the Olympics and the annual Carlos Tevez transfer saga. 

Football fans have had no respite from Zlatan Ibrahimovic, Sasa Ognenovski and Ashley Cole’s Twitter account for over a year.

International football is, simply, a wonderful product.  The World Cup is a celebration of football the Champions League Final can never replicate.  Almost every major International tournament comes with a wholesome quality lacking when players are bought or sold for exorbitant sums.  You can think of International football as Organic football, taking time and care to mature.

Those who control future international fixturing now face a decision.  When controlling such a unique (organic) product, you can approach the market in one of two ways: make your offering boutique and desirable, or compete against products which are different/plastic/a billionaire’s playground (delete as appropriate). 

International football should always be relevant; however, competing with a glitzier – but not necessarily better – product, it has fallen into byline territory.  It’s time for football federations the world over to market International football as what it is: a boutique product that offers much that the domestic game cannot.

Minnows deserve their puncher's chance

Proboxing-fans.com's lexicon of pugilistic nomenclature defines a “Puncher's Chance” as “[a fighter] who doesn't have a very good chance of beating the other fighter, who is probably more skilled, but could still pull off the win by landing a great punch and knocking his man out”.

Basically, a puncher's chance is what it says on the tin. It was the concept that defined all six Rocky movies (particularly the last) and underlies any sporting contest where one party is heavily favoured. This is never more true than in tournament football, where a 'keeper can get hot or a fluke deflection can win – or lose – a match or even a trophy.

As World Cup qualifying gears up, we're faced once again with the old chestnut of competitive balance in European football. This was brought to a head last week when big-name team England were pitted against San Marino in UEFA Group 8 qualifying. Predictably, the Three Lions put five past a team featuring a pair of brothers who run a moving company.

And, once again we're faced with calls to make principalities like San Marino, the Faroe Islands, Liechtenstein and Andorra undertake pre-qualifying in order just to get a puncher's chance. This doesn't just apply to Europe but also to several small nations in Oceania (perhaps finally consigning Archie Thompson's dubious International goalscoring record to the footnotes of history).

Yes, watching teams drubbed 31-0 may be boring; however, allowing teams that puncher's chance – no matter how infinitesimally small it is – is also the right decision.

Sometimes you have to endure humdrum sport because it's the right thing to do – just think of baseball's regular season. Football truly is the world's game and as a result it behoves FIFA to ensure the World Cup is equally accessible to all countries. For many players – home-leaguers, removalists and soda salesmen – a matchup with Steven Gerrard and Ashley Cole will probably represent the highlight of their career.

With each added qualifying game, the puncher's chance decreases. How often can lightning strike?

Sport has become more and more streamlined over the past two decades, football especially so: the past twenty years have seen both the European Cup and UEFA Cup re-organised and rebranded into money-spinning leagues. Were the same to occur at the International level, not only is the park footballer robbed of his moment, but any chance of upset – or even unexpected challenge – is automatically gainsayed.

For a sport so openly seeking egalitarianism (the one defensible reason for the Blatter regime's failure to implement goal-line technology is/was a desire for the sport at the park to played in almost exactly the same way as the World Cup Final), offering everyone the same opportunity is the fairest only way forward.

It's hardly like the lack of competition damages the sport. In contrast, it's likely to inspire youth who on one magical evening got to see a spectacular Wayne Rooney free kick and returns home to practice and improve. That teen could become Rooney mark II; he could also coach his local junior side.

American Samoa has only the remotest puncher's chance of defeating New Zealand in a home-and-home matchup. But they still deserve the opportunity.

FIFA's five rules for ruling

Mohammed Bin Hamman's lifetime ban from all FIFA activities has been lifted by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. He was last year found guilty by a FIFA panel of inquiry for attempting to bribe CONCACAF officials into supporting his bid for FIFA presidency.

Once more the world's most popular sport plunges into bureaucratic anarchy, unable to focus on anything other than defending themselves against accusations of self interest and greed. Much of the glare will be aimed squarely at Sepp Blatter: the incumbent president was elected unopposed when Bin Hammam withdrew his candidacy after speculation as to his conduct arose.

Expect this one to stay before the courts for a loooooong time.

FIFA can now no longer accomplish anything without suit, controversy, speculation and countersuit. Any real work the governing body should be doing – like, say, rooting out corruption – is sidetracked by eternal self-defence. As an entity, FIFA has become so unwieldy and submerged in legalese that it seems to exist only to perpetuate their own power.

Any accomplishment whatsoever defies the contented inertia emanating from Zurich.

In the excellent (if slightly repetitive) book The Dictator's Handbook – Why bad behaviour is almost always good politics, two US academics assert there are five rules employed by each “successful” dictator. These rules allow a leader to stay in power almost indefinitely. All were followed – one way or another – by absolute rulers such as Gaddafi, Mubarak and Castro.

Those five rules, broken down, are:

• Keep the ruling powers small
• Keep the “electorate” large
• Control the money
• Pay your supporters just enough to keep 'em loyal and
• Never take money from your supporters to make the population's life any better

It was one of those matter-of-fact moments when I realised all of these rules are explicitly – if not consciously – followed at FIFA headquarters.

Points one and two involve staying in power by abusing the electoral process, a skill at which Robert Mugabe excels. The ruling power is FIFA's Executive committee, of which there are twenty-four members; however, it can be said that only ten of these members have any substantive power. Secondly, the greater “electorate” involves all the governing bodies of all 209 recognised FIFA member nations.

When it comes to money, FIFA's main source of finance is the World Cup, which is doled out on cough, cough “merit”. It's the single most lucrative month in football, the prototypical golden-laying fowl, and enough to make politicians and administrators all over the world treat FIFA "dignitaries" with more respect than visiting heads of state. Any member of this cadre wants to stay - so they are paid just enough to keep them from upsetting the apple cart. Finally, why would any of these members risk the gravy train to give the average fans what they want?

Of course, this may all be just coincidence – these principles aren't necessarily applied only by dictators or absolute rulers, just those whose primary aim is to stay in power. Coincidence or no, there are just too many similarities for comfort.

The Football Year 2011

Best Moment: Wayne Rooney's overhead kick against Manchester City to cement a derby win and Manchester United's nineteenth domestic title.

Best Team: Barcelona. Although their reign of terrifying beauty may come to an end sooner rather than later if the defense is not reinforced.

Most disappointing Team: The A-League's Adelaide United, despite bringing in quality during the offseason (Dario Vidosic), last week fired manager Rini Coolen after finding themselves near the table's lower reaches. His replacement is former boss John Kosmina, who will undoubtedly achieve results, but a team which had high expectations are unlikely to trouble Playoffs predictors this year.

Best Manager: Napoli manager Walter Mazzarri led the Partinopei to the Champions League behind the attacking triumvirate of Marek Hamsik, Ezequiel Lavezzi and one Edinson Cavani. While only sitting in seventh position at the moment, he also masterminded qualification for the Champions League last sixteen from a very tricky group. Honorable mentions go to Juventus' Antonio Conte and Manchester City boss Roberto Mancini, who started the year amongst the favourites to be sacked. Mancini loses out as his team drew a tough Champions League group but should still have qualified for the second round.

Man of the year: Mario Balotelli, for his emergence as a figure both of awesome talent and application, but also for having a sense of fun so all-encompassing that he's gone from villain to hero in the course of six months. His resume this year includes throwing darts at youth team players, popping out for an iron and coming back with a Scalextric track, attempting a back-heel in a friendly against the LA Galaxy, nearly burning his home down when lighting fireworks in his bathroom and unveiling a T-shirt after scoring saying "Why always me"?

Signing of 2011: Even though he's unlikely to win any popularity contests and seems to attract headlines at the same rate as Balotelli, Luis Suarez scores goals more regularly than the guy he replaced, Fernando Torres. Runner-up goes to Manchester City's Sergio Aguero, who looks already to be the one of, if not the, best striker in the Premiership.

Unheralded Signing of 2011: Mauro Rosales of the Seattle Sounders was a magnificent pickup and headlined the MLS Team of the Year. Staying in North America, the Montreal Impact selecting Justin Mapp from Philadelphia in the Expansion Draft.

Worst Signing: It's harsh given his status as the reigning World Cup Most Valuable Player, but Inter Milan's acquisition of Diego Forlan - under the short and star-cross'd reign of manger Gian Piero Gasperini - to replace Samuel Eto'o was bemusing given his ineligibility to play for Inter in European competition.

Most stubborn resistance to commonsense: FIFA's refusal to countenance the use of technology - especially on the goal-line - belies the fact that journalists, players and administrators insist it's needed due to the increased speed of the game.

Goal of the Year: Benji de Ceulaer's strike for Lokeren against Brugge in the Belgian League was a combination of skill, touch and positioning.

Gaffe of the year: Theyab Awana's back-heel penalty for the UAE against Lebanon wasn't necessarily a gaffe per-se, but it did lead to his substitution for showboating only minutes after being introduced. The UAE youngster died in a road accident only two months later.

Poorest Managerial Fit: It has to be Gasperini, who replaced Leonardo, who superseded Rafael Benitez, who inherited the blue side of Milan from Jose Mourinho. Gasperini set the Nerazzuri up in a 3-4-3, while not having defenders mobile enough to pull it off.

Explosion of 2011: David Silva has always been known as a talent, but this year he emerged as perhaps one of the world's top three footballers. He is justifiably favourite for the English Footballer of the Year award and has kept big-money signing Samir Nasri out of the first team picture at Manchester's Etihad stadium.

Implosion of 2011: After surrendering to Stoke City 5-0 in the FA Cup semi-final at the end of last season, Bolton Wanderers have struggled badly as key players have been injured or badly out of touch and star centre-back Gary Cahill is counting down his days at the Reebok Stadium. The Trotters look like they'll need a lot of luck to escape relegation.

Villain of 2011: Could it be anyone else but Carlos Tevez? The world's most malcontent footballer attracts controversy like no other. After losing his starting place to the firing Edin Dzeko and Kun Aguero, he - allegedly - refused to enter a game and has hardly been seen since. Some big European clubs are interested in the diminutive Argentine, but aren't prepared to stump up the cash City would like.

Spain's Second XI worthy of top 10 ranking

While watching David Silva and Spain dismantle a dogged and compact Scotland on Wednesday, it struck me: this was hardly Spain's best outfit and they were dominating.

Silva cemented his bona fides as one of the top half-dozen players in world football and Spain, with a team featuring second-choice players like Thiago Alcantara, Jordi Alba and Santi Cazorla, passed Scotland into an uneasy submission. The Scots, bless 'em, tried hard but the Spaniards seemed at times to be playing not just another game, but on another plane.

The players who didn't feature on Tuesday - Torres, Casillas, Xabi Alonso, Iniesta, Mata - mean it's now apparent that Spain's second XI could be one of the world's ten best international outfits. They are helped by a healthy youth league and a relative dearth of great opposition: realistically, only the Netherlands and Germany are able to hold a candle to the Spaniards. Brazil and Argentina today only resemble their most terrifying best.

courtesy: sparklingchelsea.wordpress.com

The FIFA world rankings (hardly the greatest indicator, but the only one we've got) suggest the world's top ten sides are Spain, the Netherlands, Germany, Uruguay, Portugal, Italy, Brazil, England, Croatia and Argentina.

In living up to their position description as confusing and nonsensical, the FIFA rankings have Croatia ranked ninth and Greece sitting in eleventh position. This is in spite of both squads finding themselves in the same qualifying group for Euro 2012; a group from which Greece qualified and Croatia now face a tricky playoff tie with Turkey.

We can, however, suggest this is a fairly accurate representation of the best teams in world football.

Were Spain's Second XI to feature in the FIFA rankings, they'd come up against three great teams (Germany, the Netherlands and Uruguay), two inconsistent ones (the other South Americans) and four eminently beatable squads, each with major weaknesses. Apart from perhaps a perceived weakness in central defence, Spain II play a similar brand of football to their first-choice brethren, have pace in abundance and, as they showed on Tuesday, discipline.

Using Spain's favoured 4-2-3-1, the second furia roja would probably include: Valdes; Alba, Jose Enrique, Alvaro Arbeloa and Raul Albiol; Thiago, Javi Martinez, Cesc Fabregas, Santi Cazorla and Pedro; and Fernando Llorente.

Wow.

The argument could be made that this team also features some of the best players dozen players in Spain. In this lineup Pedro plays for the "magoos", yet started in their World Cup triumph last year - superseded by Mata and Silva. Valdes' recent success in head-to-head battles with Casillas now invites, rather than discourages, comparison between the two. Fabregas is shuttled out of the Spain midfield (as with club) by players comfortably in the World's top five. Spain has played better recently when Llorente - rather than Torres - has led the line.

This club may even trouble the the vaunted Spain first team. The Spain Second XI are, on paper, a better team than Croatia, Portugal and even Italy. Place Spain v2.0 in any one of the Euro 2012 qualifying groups (and back them with suitable squad depth) and they at least make the playoffs from each. It's probably also the case that they'd slice England to pieces also.

The simile used most with Spain (and Barcelona) is "death by one thousand cuts". Perhaps a more appropriate metaphor may be that Spanish football is at present drowning the rest of the football world - inexorably, constrictingly and (given their outstanding Euro U-21 campaign) shows no signs of receding. All that is certain is the next wave of Spanish attacks could well overwhelm a struggling Scot, Lithuanian or even Oranje. After decades of torment, La Furia Roja is certainly making up for lost time.

While going back-to-back-to-back at major tournaments is so difficult that it's spoke of in grail-like reverence, the smart money for next year's Euros is on a three-peat - perhaps simply because the difficulty of staying focused for such a period is balanced by the failure of chief rivals Germany and the Netherlands to bridge the gaping talent gap.

Jack Warner resigns from FIFA, "hung out to dry"

The President of the CONCACAF and Vice President of FIFA Jack Warner has stepped down from his role at FIFA three weeks after threatening to "unleash a tsunami" on football's governing body. Trinidadian Warner was implicated in allegations of facilitating bribery within the ranks of the World's most powerful sporting organisation. In response to his resignation, FIFA dropped all charges against him: their statutes allow them to investigate only affiliated members.

Ostensibly, Warner has resigned to concentrate on his political career in his homeland. In reality, he escapes shame, censure and possible criminal charges, hightailing it away from Geneva with his tail between his legs - a man suspended by his own organisation since May 30th and covered in the scorn of the footballing masses. His name is associated with allegations of corruption and vote-buying both in FIFA Presidential elections and World Cup hosting elections.

He has not gone quietly. He has suggested he's been "Hung out to dry" by FIFA, with Presidential challenger Mohamed Bin Hammam made the highly visible scapegoat for the obvious ills of world football administration. His words are revealing, if for no other reason than they exemplify his lack of perspective - he seems unaware of the stigma that he has become to FIFA and the disdain in which he is held by the general population outside the Caribbean.

Though his words may contain some elements of truth - that FIFA are laying him on a sacrificial altar to give the appearance of regime change - they also, reflect the very heart of Jack Warner. Had he just added "My actions", his words would perhaps be more accurate and unquestionably more well-received. In the past, his actions, alleged and proven, have spoken far louder than his plaintive bleats now: his quote "I've been hung out to dry continually and I'm not prepared to take that" sounds extremely lonesome - as if he feels he were a cancerous appendage that's outlived it's usefulness and now must be excised for the good of the whole. It's not an enviable position but his words carry only a modicum of his former trademark feistiness.

Whether he is in fact guilty of many of the charges levelled at him is now, while not inconsequential, unlikely will matter. Most probably, he and his alleged misdeeds will be lost in the sands of time. His rap sheet is lengthy, but like Senator Clay Davis (of The Wire) he's been powerful, relatively disconnected and safe from impeachment. That is until now - when nearing the end he finally understood the gravity of the situation he faced by backing Bin Hammam (also suspended) against Sepp Blatter in the FIFA Presidential election. Like any henchman Warner, though for so long a company man, was backed by the powers-that-be only while he remained functional.

Henchman may well be the word that best describes Warner: badass enough but never the Boss, a man mostly made formidable by his allies. When he became more a nuisance than a help, it was time for his superiors to let him take the fall. If I've learned anything from watching The Wire it's often you must climb the ladder of iniquity to reach the ultimate villains, taking small victories along the way. Rarely do big-time dominoes topple first.

While Jack Warner may not by the letter of the law done things which are illegal, he certainly has not endeared himself to the mob. He was (and still is, in Trinidad & Tobago) in a position of authority. Those entrusted with much must not just do right, but must also be seen to be doing right. Above all else, this is where Jack Warner failed both himself and FIFA. Though he would entreat himself purer than snow, he is not perceived that way and thus has failed in his role both as CONCACAF President and FIFA Vice President. By failing, he should relinquish his right to be a member of such exalted company.

We can hope this begins a new phase in FIFA's existence and hopefully, the start of a great purge which removes indelicate, corrupt elements of the Executive and replaces them with honest alternates. With luck, any cleanout will go right to the top. Parochial Australian hopes for some kind of vindication of the money spent on a World Cup bid they had no chance of winning? Perhaps. But no doubt indicative of a football supporter hoping for the best for a game he loves. Wishful thinking maybe, but we can all dream. Football fans everywhere share the same dream.

Jack Warner wasn't hung out to dry by FIFA, but by himself.

Image courtesy: rulehibernia.com

Mohamed Bin Hammam to challenge Blatter's Presidency?

It was Douglas Adams in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe who said "One of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them: It is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. Anyone who is capable of getting themselves into a position of power should on no account be allowed to do the job". It could be said that this is very much the case with the FIFA presidency.

Sepp "Bellend" (link) Blatter has governed FIFA with the opposite of aplomb for thirteen years. During this time, he's been able to say that he pushed for - and got - World Cups in Africa, the Middle East and Russia. He has also implemented smaller strides - shuffles? - forward, namely the recent banning of snoods. His tenure, which has so far coincided with the rise of Hawkeye technology and a faster-paced sport, will also be noted for his hesitancy in employing those technological advances in world football.

Perhaps he will be most remembered as the man who helmed an organisation unable or unwilling to deal with probable corrupt elements within its own ranks. His political legacy will be masked by his occasional monstrous gaffes, such as his comments for homosexual men to refrain from sex during the 2022 Cup in Qatar and accepting the Liberian Humane Order of African Redemption from dictator Charles Taylor. Sepp Blatter's no angel - he may even define his nickname and appears to the general populace as a power-mad, publicity-hungry buffoon. His reign isn't most notable for what he has done, but for what he has failed to achieve.

And he has a challenger for the presidency of FIFA, Asian Football Confederation President Mohamed Bin Hammam. The Qatari is a member of FIFA's 24-man Executive Committee and is widely expected to announce his intentions within the next ten days. The elections are held in Zurich over 31st May and 1st June and Bin Hammam - who has made noises about running for over a year - must surely both disappoint and scare Blatter after what can only be described as a frustrating past four years for football's tallest poppy.

Both men were seen as crucial figures in Qatar's successful World Cup bid in November, the potential challenger for his role as bid champion and the incumbent for his hearty endorsement. This was a curious move by the President given his options and was seen by skeptics and neutrals alike as an attempt to mollify Bin Hammam and his Asian brethren. In many ways, Qatar's bid could end up facing more scrutiny as a result of perhaps one more ham-fisted action from one of the world's most influential men - not an election promise per se, but a pre-election payoff to a potential opponent.

But let's not say categorically that Bin Hammam is a more appropriate choice to head football's governing body than Sepp. It's also no fait d'accompli that Blatter loses the election - Bin Hammam apparently seems confident of backing from Asia, America and Africa but, crucially, less so of European support. Just the simple fact that he does not have the unwavering support of the football world appears to unnerve Blatter. It should hardly come as a surprise.

According to Adams, those who seek to rule are the least suited to doing so. This creates a philosophy which questions the morals and motivation of every politician, which is both good and appropriate. Politicians and governments need to be questioned - not because their ideals aren't right (though occasionally this may be the case) but because their practices or actions are ineffective. Questions are good because questions (should) beget answers.

For too many years, FIFA has been hamstrung by allegations of conceit, corruption and vote-buying. Change must take place - under Blatter or Bin Hammam.

Messi a worthy Ballon d'Or winner

When FIFA announced that Barcelona and Argentina forward Lionel Messi had won the Ballon d'Or as the world's best player during 2010, it flew in the face of convention by selecting a player who, although universally regarded as tremendous, had not "won it all" that year.

In all fairness, we're talking about a slightly different Ballon d'Or from now on. First and most importantly, the award is now the FIFA Ballon d'Or, dispensed by football's governing body and it's comical - and not in a good way - head, Sepp Blatter. In times past it was awarded by the magazine France Football from 1956 and until three years ago was given only to players who played in Europe. In 1991 FIFA began doling out their World Player of the Year and have wrapped their all-encompassing tentacles around a trophy they didn't own the rights to, appropriating the most famous individual footballing award and stencilled their acronym stencilled across it.

The criteria now for FIFA's Ballon d'Or winner include: performances in major tournaments; individual and team honours; individual talent; skill and fair play; their overall career and finally personality and charisma.

A second key difference is that Messi, although almost indisputably the best footballer in the world, was presented the trophy without actually being part of a winning World Cup squad. This was the first time the award has been presented in a World Cup year to a player who didn't feature for the World Champions. The Spanish press reeled and then railed against the selection of the Argentine, suggesting that triumphant Spain midfielders Xavi and Andres Iniesta were more worthy recipients. The clamour only increased when Spain coach Vicente Del Bosque was beaten into the minor places by Jose Mourinho, who helmed Inter Milan to the UEFA Champions League title.

As much as FIFA has suffered a year they had hoped for more from, we can't lay the blame squarely on the head of Sepp and his eminently swayable bureaucratic chorus. The Ballon d'Or was voted upon by journalists, coaches and captains of teams all over the world and as such the blame - or credit - can be apportioned to people inside the game and not just to those who oversee it. It's telling that Champions League winner and World Cup finalist Wesley Sneijder of Inter Milan and the Netherlands was voted for in large numbers by journalists but not as much from players and coaches, perhaps testament to his notoriously abrasive personality.

The clamour for Xavi, in particular, to win the award is fair and had he walked away with the trophy could be very few arguments. He has claims to being the best midfielder in the world - perhaps the best of his generation - and played alongside Messi with Spanish champions Barcelona and for World Cup winning Spain. But really, could anyone definitively say Xavi is a better player than Messi? And with that said, according to FIFA's criteria he only has one more string to his bow than Messi, who perhaps could have an advantage in several others. As far as Xavi ultimately having more team success, you could say Messi helped Argentina to their World Cup finish in spite of a wacky coach who selected a team which wasn't the best Argentina had to offer. In fact, Messi should be congratulated on his World Cup display while being surrounded by the circus that inevitably follows Diego Maradona. It appears, especially when noting Sneijder's miserly vote tally, that personal preference for each player's role and personality played a role.

Great players don't have to win it all to be recognised as great but they do have to perform on the largest stages. Winning certainly does provide a boost for a player's legacy but it takes a lot of convincing to prove that winning is the be-all and end-all to defining a player's greatness.

The football year, 2010

Best Moment: The final moments of the World Cup quarter-final between Uruguay & Ghana. The entire sequence, including Suarez's deliberate handball, Gyan's penalty miss and then his successful taking of the first penalty in the shootout was drama of the highest quality.

Best Team: It comes either from Spain or Barcelona, no matter what Inter Milan and their Champions' League medals say. My pick is Barcelona simply because the style of football they've produced consistently over the past twelve months has been a cut above almost anything we've seen before. Their dismantling of Real Madrid earlier this month was both beautiful and awe-inspiring.

Worst Team: Not so much "worst" as "worst performance from what should have been a good team". This award goes to Italy for their poor World Cup. Even England's desolate form looked good when compared against the reigning world champs and new manager Cesare Prandelli inherited not winners, but a team in need of rebuilding.

Best Manager: Usually the best managers are those which manage the best teams. There are few exceptions here as Pep Guardiola, Vicente Del Bosque and Jose Mourinho all have adequate claims. I'm going to opt however for Ian "Olly" Holloway from Blackpool who's overseen their transformation from Championship relegation candidates to mid-table Premiership sporting a squad made up of also-rans and journeymen.

Best Game: Without question the match in which Barcelona destroyed Real only a few weeks ago. There's a good chance that the best team in Europe waltzed over the second best with nary a second thought. Honourable mention: The Ghana/Uruguay World Cup Quarter-Final.

Player of 2010: Again, surely must come from Spain. Wayne Rooney or Diego Milito could have been in this race given they both started the year on fire but struggled with injury and form since the 2010 Champions' League. As for the best player of 2010, you could pick any of Andres Iniesta, Xavi or Lionel Messi. It's your pick, and I won't complain about any of 'em. Honourable mentions: Diego Forlan and Thomas Muller both had outstanding World Cups.

Signing of 2010: Rafael Van der Vaart has been a revelation since signing on for Tottenham in the Premiership. Another Dutch master who didn't fit at the Bernabeu who then has flourished after being sold.

Worst Signing: It could well be Antonio Cassano, who's recently moved from Sampdoria to AC Milan. Honourable mention: Javier Mascherano's transfer to Barcelona seemed to be Los Catalans aiming for names, rather than skill-sets. With both these signings however, time will tell.

Person who most lived up to his imaginary middle name: Sepp Blatter. I can't write what I really think of his autocratic style of government at FIFA. Honourable mention: John Terry

Most stubborn resistance to commonsense: That Arsene Wenger is yet to replace his strictly-average goalkeeping platoon of Lukas Fabianski and Manuel Almunia is what keeps his rival managers happy and giggling.

Second-most stubborn resistance to commonsense: FIFA's refusal to abide any signs of progress, especially regarding Goal-line technology.

Goal of the Year: Glentoran's Matt Burrows, amidst a veritable snowstorm of contenders.

Un-goal of the Year: Khalfan Fahad's side-foot for Qatar against Uzbekistan in the 2010 Asian Games earned him instant notoriety and (probably) the worst miss of 2010.

Craziest statement: Blatter's gaffe concerning homosexuals "refraining" last week was an extremely poorly-judged piece of social commentary masquerading as a joke. Honourable mentions: Most other statements issued by Sepp Blatter; Mario Balotelli saying that only Lionel Messi was a better player than him, Steven Gerrard calling Joe Cole "better than Messi".

Poorest Managerial Fit: Roy Hodgson at Liverpool. He's a remarkably talented manager but already the seeds of his dismissal have been sown. Honourable mention: Rafael Benitez's horrible stint in charge of Inter Milan.

Harshest EPL sacking: Although Sam Allardyce may have other ideas, there's no question Chris Hughton has been the hardest-done-by manager in the Premiership this year.

Most obvious money-grabbing tactic of 2010: Wayne Rooney's five-day turnaround in October where he went from demanding a transfer to signing the richest Man U contract ever. With those actions, he went from fan favourite to pariah, and rightly so. Honourable mention: Blatter's acceptance and backing of the Qatari bid for the 2022 World Cup.

Explosion of 2010: Gareth Bale's emergence as a world-class left winger, where he's taken apart several outstanding defences throughout the course of the year. Honourable mention: Antonio Cassano's tirade at Sampdoria president Riccardo Garrone.

Implosion of 2010: France's World Cup squad became more and more farcical as the tournament progressed. It was incredibly amusing, especially given that Nicolas Anelka was at the hub, a man who it's very difficult to like. Honourable mention: football owners, left and right, whose teams were simply not set up to cope with the global economic downturn, eg. Sacha Gaydamak's reign at Portsmouth.

Hero of 2010: Owen Coyle has transformed Bolton from relegation candidates to real possibilities for Europe with much the same squad as predecessor Gary Megson, all with an affable and approachable attitude and a pleasing style of game - the kind of man you'd want to have a beer with. Honourable mention: Jose Mourinho (!) for masterminding Inter's Champions' League triumph over Barca.

Villain of 2010: (tie) John Terry and Luis Suarez. John Terry for his off-field exploits (allegedly) with Wayne Bridge's ex; Suarez could be considered either hero or villain for his actions during the World Cup quarter final, but after recently biting an opponent and earning a seven-match ban sees him firmly planted in the villain category. Honourable mention: Roy Hodgson, who's worshiped by Fulham fans and ridiculed by Liverpudlians.

World Cup voting needs transparency

After Australia failed in it's bid to host the 2022 FIFA World Cup, emotions are mixed. Most of the better-known feelings are bouncing around: jealousy, anger, relief, disappointment, happiness and resentment. But by far the most prevalent statement I've heard has been that of the jilted lover: "We don't care, we don't want to be associated with that corrupt organisation anyway". Like a break-up, it hurts at the time but now reality has set in again, the subject can be analysed with more clarity and objectivity. Now the prospect of hosting has vanished in a mild explosion of whimsy, Australia is looking for reasons Qatar won the bid and the first reason to which most have come is that FIFA is possibly/probably/how-can-it-not-be a corrupt organisation.

Maybe there are some corrupt members of the FIFA Executive. Maybe there aren't. But the process of awarding the hosting rights to the World Cup is such an opaque, murky mess that it's precisely the environment in which corruption and bribery thrives. As a case in point, two members originally scheduled to vote had their voting rights withdrawn due to to allegations they had taken money for votes.

Once a country or group of countries decide to bid for the hosting rights, the subsequent years are full of wining and dining preening and self-important FIFA execs, who expect only the best treatment. If the "entertainment" is poor, then it reflects poorly on that bid no matter how many other positive factors there may be. When a FIFA World Cup Selection delegation arrives in a country they are perfectly happy to be treated as visiting royalty: to accept the lunches, handshakes and intangibles that potential hosts have to offer. When the time comes to put pen to paper, by maintaining a silent bid process they can choose for a) Whoever has the most impressive bid or b) the guys who treated them best, whether that be inside the regulations or out. These same FIFA executives don't like being made accountable for their actions by you, me, the bidding countries or the media: Britain's bid for the 2018 tournament was said to have been damaged by a documentary detailing alleged corrupt practices in the FIFA system since 1989. Bad-mouth FIFA and their secretive brethren at your peril.

That potential host countries are unable to see who has voted for them - and hence how well their legal (or illegal as the case may be) money has been spent - identifies the voting process as that of a secret society rather than that of an immensely powerful worldwide organisation. The slightest implied slight to an executive member pays horrible dividends to a country's bid yet the executives themselves don't put themselves in the same firing line by saying "I cast this vote". If the voting process was made simpler and more transparent then much of the corruption and allegations of bribery would fade into the background.

Sepp Blatter is an easy target, as is the shemozzle he presides over in FIFA. But sometimes easy targets are that easy because their actions or words put themselves in the firing line again and again. By making each executive member accountable for the vote they cast would be the first step in making FIFA less of a secretive coven of powerful wizards needing to receive tribute and more of the governing body football needs in order to continue flourishing.

Who's better, who's best?

The mother country Old Blighty, England, the home of Three Lions, Jason Statham and most importantly Doctor Who is rumoured to have pulled out of the running to host the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Their bid process was beset by scandal from the beginning – the affair of bid-chief Lord Triesman, controversy surrounding the awarding of handbags to FIFA representatives and finally, Triesman's magnificent-in-its-folly “The Spanish are bribing the Russians” being leaked to the press.

FIFA regulations require each country or countries to bid for two world cups – 2018 and 2022. Eleven countries began the process and since then both Mexico and Indonesia have withdrawn leaving England, Spain, Russia the USA and Australia as the five favourites to host the world's largest sporting event. It has been reported recently via several news sources – including ESPN Soccernet and guardian.co.uk – that the English bid has chosen to focus on winning only the 2018 event, rather than 2022, taking opposite tactics to those of Australia, Qatar, South Korea and Japan.

It's looking increasingly likely that Europe will host the 2018 Cup. The two before will have been held in South America and Africa, meaning it's probable one of England, Spain or Russia will host the tournament. It's unlikely that FIFA will sanction two consecutive World Cups in the same continent nor would they tend to go for “repeat business” – Japan and Korea joint-hosted in 2002 – meaning almost by default the USA and Australia become the first choices for 2022.

As an Australian living in North America, I can't wait for decision day on 2^nd December this year: whatever decision FIFA council comes up with, I benefit! In reality however, the World Cup is so iconic that it seems a pity to see two countries equally adept at putting on a show to fight it out for the honour and money that comes to the host.

Look at what the 1994 World Cup did for the USA. The majority of the USA's well-performed 2010 World Cup squad would have been in Elementary school in 1994 and football now is making a strong push to be considered the fifth major North American sport. Surely it's time to give that opportunity to Australia, long a producer of quality players and occasionally quality teams, but on a shoestring budget as football is still fighting off basketball, lawn bowls and horse racing for a place in the national sporting consciousness.

At the time of the 2022 World Cup – assuming as most do that 2018 will be awarded to Europe – since 1970, South America will have hosted three Cups, Europe six, North America three and Asia and Africa both only one. It's time for FIFA to embrace Asia again and award the World Cup to the confederation which would benefit from it most.