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.

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.