2022 World Cup meaningless amidst further deaths

Milo and Otis redefined the whole feline/canine relationship movie. At least to a child, it did. It featured a beautiful ginger kitten and his buddy, a Pug, heading off on an incredible journey. It was one of the most successful kid’s movies of 1986 and had even the most grizzled, Star-Wars-obsessed seven-year-olds transfixed by its simple beauty.

Until we found out that that adorable ginger kitten was probably at least 20 adorable ginger kittens that just happened to look the same. Numerous reports have the animal cruelty budget on the project far exceeding the monies devoted to Dudley Moore’s voiceovers; those of us who experienced wholesome joy on first viewing now cleanse ourselves occasionally with scouring pads at once innocent memories.

via en.wikipedia.org

Two recent news reports over the past week have thrown yet further doubt over the qualifications of Qatar to host the 2022 World Cup. The first, filed last week, has FIFA “seriously considering” moving football’s flagship event from the successful bidder due to concerns about possible human rights violations inflicted upon Nepalese workers involved in the construction of the tournament’s stadia.

This was followed on Tuesday by The Guardian reporting that over 500 Indian workers had died in Qatar since 2012. While totals are of course vague, this suggests that nearly 1000 underprivileged migrant workers have been effectively sacrificed in the past two years to construct state-of-the-art arenas for a country that boasts the world’s highest per-capita income.

The Indian consulate have confirmed that 717 Indian nationals have died in Qatar since the World Cup was awarded to the Gulf nation in December 2010, with some estimates of the death toll before 2022 stretching north of 4000. In the article by the Guardian, the Qatari Labor and Social affairs ministry were quoted as “clarifying” the numbers.

Precisely what that clarification involves is still to be determined.

Even yesterday, FIFA President Joseph S. Blatter has suggested that Qatar’s host status is not under threat.

It’s time for football fans to say that the 2022 World Cup has no place in football. While it’s logical to assume that not all of these fatalities relate to World Cup construction, part of the tournament’s mission is to advance FIFA’s mission, which is to “develop the game, touch the world, build a better future”*.

FIFA’s better future obviously doesn’t extend to the families of the deceased workers.

On FIFA’s website, Joseph S. Blatter personally signs off on a phrase that should doom the Qatar World Cup, but seemingly hasn’t: “We see it as our duty to take on the social responsibility that comes hand in hand with our position at the helm of the world’s most loved sport”. That a member state works employees in such conditions as the Guardian and other sources describe so as to run a sanctioned tournament is comment enough on how seriously FIFA take their own mission statement.

Football fans must announce loudly to FIFA that they care more about the thousand-plus unfortunate workers – and the many more that continue to work under harsh Qatari conditions – than they do about watching an event tarnished by blood of this magnitude. In selling the event to Qatar, FIFA have embraced a nation whose ethic on immigrant rights is not only outdated, it does not reflect that of much of the world and deserves only the loudest and most strident condemnation.

Given FIFA’s (and Qatar’s) governance, the only way to effect change is to ignore the Cup. This might be a hardship, but a necessary one that protests the blind eye that the game’s governing body has turned to the plight of immigrant workers in FIFA’s tiniest powerhouse nation. As a football populace, we can’t ignore those deaths either and the responsibility rests with us to become agents of change – and the only way we can catalyse this is making ourselves heard, and by refusing to invest financially or ethically in a broken and self-centered institution.

It asks much of football fans to boycott a World Cup, but there are more important matters at stake than pride in a national sporting ability.

*(FIFA also suggests on its homepage that it stands for “authenticity, unity, performance and integrity. Make of this what you will).

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.

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.

Alternative XI: Footballing Autofills

The fantastically funny Dave Gorman podcast features a segment called “Autofill your boots”. In it, a listener is invited to answer quiz questions which have been autofilled by Google's search engine algorithms.

It works like this: if you type the querulous words “Can you” into Google's query box, it suggest the next most likely conclusions to your request. These autofill answers are predicated by one's location and often by search preferences. As you can see below, the most popular completions in the case of “Can you” include “run it”, “feel the love tonight lyrics”, “freeze cheese”, “get mono twice”, “overdose on vitamin c” and “print from an ipad” amongst some other more unsavoury inquiries. Dave then asks the challenger if you can, in fact, contract mononucleosis twice.

 This parlour-game derives from Google's reputation alongside Wikipedia as the font of all knowledge, arbiter of all sexual health questions and the bane of pub trivia masters everywhere. When we enter certain football personalities into Google, the autofills can amuse, tell a sordid tale, sum up or even reveal a public concern for their (potential) religious views or sexuality.

So, without any further introduction, here's the Autofill Eleven – with subs included.

Football's crisis-magnets

How well do we think of our footballers? Inspired by the wonderful webcomic XKCD, I decided to find out which players are represented most negatively on the internet.

The table below shows how frequently a polarising football figure's name arises in an internet article which also features one of these "negative" words: crisis, saga, scandal, row, gaffe, controversy.  For example, nearly 41% of all articles about Wayne Rooney mentioned the word crisis (an astonishing 11,100,000 - approximately).

Player	Total hits	Crisis	Saga	Scandal	Row	Gaffe	Controversy
Wayne Rooney	27200000	40.81%	24.67%	5.48%	53.31%	2.69%	25.40%
Carlos Tevez	14700000	64.69%	38.85%	24.76%	40.41%	3.48%	21.50%
Sepp Blatter	7690000	41.48%	13.52%	35.37%	67.23%	2.51%	27.44%
John Terry	14600000	44.52%	23.29%	4.51%	41.85%	3.47%	24.45%
Zlatan Ibrahimovic	15000000	26.33%	14.33%	17.93%	22.00%	2.55%	12.67%
Jose Mourinho	25800000	39.53%	19.07%	20.23%	32.40%	2.09%	17.02%
David Beckham	60100000	43.93%	40.93%	5.96%	64.73%	2.11%	27.12%
Ronaldo	214000000	31.64%	27.94%	15.05%	17.66%	0.93%	5.00%

The individual words were then googled (along with the player names) to evaluate which words were most associated with which public figure.

Obviously this is hardly definitive, considering the negative word doesn't have to specifically refer to the player, just be featured in the same article. Further complicating matters was that the word "row" has two meanings. Ronaldo was intended to mean "El Fenomeno", the Brazilian legend, but invariably captures much content referring to Real Madrid forward Cristiano Ronaldo.

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.

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.