Tag Archives: FIFA

Women’s football needs a Kerry Packer. Unfortunately it won’t get one 

With women’s football it sometimes seems like a case of one step forward then one step back. Two months after a fantastic EURO 2017 two of the four Semi Finalists, England and Denmark are in turmoil. Both are involved in dreadful situations and neither countries FA comes out of it with credit. 

First England. Since EURO 2017 the English FA has been involved in a racism scandal. It started with dropped striker Eni Aluko accusing manager Mark Sampson of making racist comments to her. Two independent enquiries cleared Sampson yet Aluko was offered £80000 “hush money” to cover up the allegations.

Then last month the story got worse when another player – Chelsea’s mixed race Drew Spence – accused Sampson of racism – saying he had asked her how many times she had been arrested. Another enquiry was announced but in a bizzare twist Sampson got sacked for an unrelated story – that he behaved inappropriately with young players at his former club Bristol Academy. The ridiculous thing being that the FA had the report into Sampson’s conduct at Bristol Academy two years ago but they did not read it until someone encouraged the FA to do so. Why Sampson wasn’t fully investigated either when he was appointed in 2013 or when the report into his conduct at Bristol appeared two years ago only the FA will know. 

And then last week the affair got even worse when the FA revealed that Sampson had been found guilty of racist remarks to Aluko and Spence. Aluko was totally vindicated and FA Chairman Greg Clarke and Chief Executive Martin Glenn totally humiliated. Both men squirmed through an embarrassingly inept performance in front of the All Party Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee last Wednesday with Clarke claiming allegations of institutional racism at the FA were “fluff”. NOT the FA’s finest hour (to put it mildly). MPs – notably Ian Lucas and Jo Stevens – were not impressed and could you blame them? The FA came across as racist, sexist and determined to protect Sampson at all costs – not a good look. 

But the FA are not the only FA that is not having a good time with its women’s team. EURO 2017 finalists Denmark are also in turmoil. Their World Cup qualifer against Sweden on Friday was cancelled when the players boycotted the game and the second best team in Europe are in danger of being kicked out of the World Cup by FIFA. How did this happen? 

The problem in Denmark is more common in the women’s game than the racism in England – namely pay. The Danish FA and the players have been negotiating since November but with no success. A EURO 2017 Final rematch with Holland last month was cancelled but a temporary agreement allowed their first World Cup qualifer in Hungary to be played (and won 6-1). But negotiations broke down yet again and the game against Sweden was cancelled. Another temporary agreement has allowed tomorrow’s qualifer in Croatia to go ahead but Denmark are at the mercy of UEFA and FIFA. Sweden’s players (to their credit) want the game to be rearranged but shamefully the Swedish FA want to take the forfeit victory.

Denmark is not the first case of a women’s national football team being in dispute with its FA over pay and/or conditions. Australia, the US. Argentina, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland are other countries where this has happened. But none of them reached the stage of the team being in danger of being thrown out of the World Cup. But it is clear that women footballers more and more are getting fed up with low or non existent pay and poor or non existent facilities. The problem for the women players is that there is nowhere for them to go but competitions ran by UEFA and FIFA who have a monopoly on football. There is no alternative for them than to try and pressure sexist, intransigent FAs to change. 

Women’s football in 2017 increasingly reminds me of professional cricket in 1977. Again the players were in dispute with the authorities over pay and conditions. For example Dennis Lillee then the best fast bowler in the world earned more money from his window cleaning business than from playing cricket despite the Australian Cricket Board making hundreds of thousands of dollars in gate receipts from the team’s matches. 

The difference here is that the Australian (and world) cricketers had somewhere else to go. A rich entrapenuer Kerry Packer had fallen out with the Australian Cricket Board for totally different reasons (he wanted exclusive Test rights for his TV station Channel 9 which the board wouldn’t grant). He had the idea to stage his own Test matches and the money to lure discontented cricketers to play in his games. To cut a very long story short (I’ll be writing about the Packer Affair soon) the Australian Cricket Board without the country’s best players ended up drowning in red ink and had to capitulate both to Packer – giving him the TV rights he wanted – and to the Australian players – giving them the higher pay they wanted. Other cricket countries learning the lesson had to increase the pay of their players to protect against another Packer.

Women’s football could really do with its own Kerry Packer to give the players another option and drive pay up. The difference here is that there isn’t a Packer lurking in the background nor will they ever be. Because of ingrained sexism it is highly unlikely that an entrapenuer will be unhappy that his TV station is not covering women’s football and thus be willing to combine with the discontented female players to set up an alternative tournament like Packer did in cricket (nor tolerate the start up losses that Packer did because he knew he would – and did – make money long term). 

The fact is as Jean Williams has pointed out in her books “A Game For Rough Girls” and “A Beautiful Game” is that FIFA, UEFA and most national FAs do not care about women’s football and only run it to maintain their monopoly over the game. They will pay the women as little as they can get away with – just like the Australian Cricket Board in the 1970s. 

The courage of Eni Aluko, Pernille Harder and the rest of the Danish women’s team is admirable and change is happening and will continue to happen. But to speed it up women’s football really needs its own Kerry Packer to break the FIFA monopoly pay women players what they are worth and force the FAs to do likewise to get the players back. But since the media, TV and big business are as sexist towards women’s football as the football establishment women’s football won’t get its Kerry Packer. Which means that the progress towards fair treatment of female footballers will be a lot slower than it should be…

Advertisements

Recalling an unsung hero

Today is an historic night for women’s football in Scotland as the national team finally makes its debut in a major tournament – against England of all teams. There is no doubt that the team thoroughly deserved this debut as they were unlucky to qualify for both Euro 2009 (lost to Russia in a play off on away goals) and Euro 2013 (lost to Spain in a play off to a goal in the 122nd minute). So after the misery the team has gone through in the past they deserve their place in the sun (and the fact that they are playing England is a boost as this gives women’s football in Scotland far more publicity than they would have gotten had they been drawn in any other group). 

But this is also a time to reflect on the players who helped make Scottish women’s football – the early pioneers like Nettie Honeyball, Nancy “Cannonball” Thompson and Julie Fleeting – and an unsung hero who has a claim to be the greatest female footballer this island has ever produced but yet got totally disowned by her own country and had to play for another country in international football.

The player I am talking about is Rose Reilly. Rose was born in Stewarton East Ayrshire. Now you have to remember in these days (the late 1960s) women’s football was still banned in the UK. Rose wanted to play football but the only way she could play was to cut her hair short and call herself Ross Reilly so she could play for Stewarton Boys’ Club. She was so good that a scout from Celtic who was watching Stewarton wanted “him” to sign for Celtic – but as she was a girl not only could she not sign for Celtic she could not play for the Boys’ Club anymore.

Luckily there was a women’s team she could join – Stewarton Thistle. In 1971 she played aged 16 in the first English women’s FA Cup losing to Southampton. She was a losing finalist in the English FA Cup Final three years in a row and played in the first Scotland international of the new era (1972). 

But she wanted to be a professional footballer – but in the Scotland of the 1970s there was no career opportunities for women in football. Luckily she was able to make a career for herself abroad. In 1974 she moved to French professional team Reims but after just six months moved to Italy with Milan. 

To show how ridiculous football in Scotland was for the heinous crime of having a professional career abroad Reilly was banned in 1975 (along with team mate Edna Nellis) for life from playing for Scotland. This was not unique to Scotland at the time. England’s Sue Lopez had to choose between playing for England and being a professional abroad but in her case she gave up a professional career for an international one. Even in men’s football there were people who wanted Kevin Keegan banned from playing for England when he joined Hamburg in 1977! 

Reilly thought at the time that her career was over. Luckily it wasn’t as she went on to play for a variety of Italian teams including Catania and Leece as well as Milan. Amazingly in 1978-79 she won League titles in two different countries! She win the Italian League with Leece (playing on Saturday nights) and the French League with Remis (playing on Sunday afternoons). We can guarantee that will never happen again! 

She was even able to play international football despite being banned from playing for Scotland. She got Italian citizenship and was able to play in a Women’s World Cup in China in 1983 because the event was not officially recognised by FIFA (FIFA did not hold an Official Women’s World Cup until 1991). Not only did she play for Italy she captained them to the title and scored from 40 yards in the final and was voted the “Best Female Player in the World”. 

By 1984 Reilly was earning £12000 a year with Trani (for comparison current England captain Steph Houghton reportedly earns £60000 a year). She played in Italy until retiring at the age of 40. She won 22 caps for Italy and ten for Scotland during a career where Celtic tried to sign her, she would get banned from playing for her own country, won League titles in two countries in one season and won a World Cup with her adopted country. 

Her story has a happy ending in that the Scottish Football Association (SFA) inducted her into their Hall of Fame finally making up for the injustice of banning her for life back in 1975. Rose Reilly has a significant claim to be the best female footballer off all time in the UK – never mind Scotland. Today she lives in her home town of Stewarton and I’m sure she will be watching her successors play England tonight with pride and might be wondering what might have been had the SFA had let her play for her own country….

Time sport paid for its own parties

The Paralympics ended last Sunday ending Brazil’s two year spell in the spotlight. The country had hosted the 2014 men’s World Cup and Rio hosted the recent Olympic and Paralympic games. Whether it was a good idea for Brazil to host the two biggest events in sport back to back only that country can answer. But it is interesting that the number of cities willing to host the Olympics is falling.

An example of this happened this week. The city of Rome withdrew it’s bid for the 2024 Olympics when newly elected mayor Virginia Raggi refused to support the bid. Rome is the third city to withdraw from the race to host the 2024 Olympics. In 2015 Boston withdrew its bid citing a lack of public support. In the same year the German city of Hamburg withdrew after 51.6% of the city’s voters rejected the bid in a referendum.

But it is not just the 2024 Summer Olympics that suffered from a lack of bidding cities. The 2022 Winter Olympics suffered from the same problem. Four out of six bidding cities ended up withdrawing (Lviv, Stockholm, Oslo and Krakow). The latter withdrew after the bid was rejected in a referendum – just like Hamburg – while Stockholm and Oslo withdrew because of public opposition. Lviv withdrew because of the Ukrainian crisis and intends to bid for 2026. For the 2022 games the International Olympic Committee (IOC) were left with only Beijing – the eventual winners – and Almaty in Kazakhstan.

But why are cities queueing up NOT to bid for the Olympics? The reason is fairly simple – cost and the building of new “white elephant” sporting facilities. The recent Rio Olympics cost $12 billion. The last Winter Olympics in Sochi cost an eye watering $31 billion. The 2004 Olympics in Athens cost €9 billion and is reckoned to be a factor in Greece going bankrupt. This is nothing new. Montreal finally paid for the 1976 Olympics in 2006! Most host cities – the exception being Los Angeles in 1984 – make a loss.

But why is that when the Olympics make a profit? The answer is fairly simple. The host city has to pay the costs of the games not the IOC. But of course the host city does not get any of the profits the IOC does. And after the disaster of 2004 cities are beginning to learn this. Twelve cities bid for the 2004 Olympics. After Rome’s withdrawal only three cities are still in the race for 2024 – Los Angeles , Paris and Budapest – and the Hungarian capital is considered very much the outsider in the race. It is clear that politicians and voters have rumbled the Olympics realising that a successful city gets 16 days of a sporting party and a debt hangover that lasts for years and even decades.

So what needs to happen? The answer is fairly obvious and applies to both the Olympics and the men’s football World Cup. If FIFA and the IOC want to have these big parties they should pay for them – and give half the profits to the host city/country. Since both FIFA and the IOC say they are non profit organisations why can’t they pay for their parties? They also need to moderate their demands. FIFA forced both South Africa and Brazil to change their laws to accommodate their sponsors. Meanwhile the IOC’s list of demands for Olympic host cities was leaked to Norwegian newspaper VG before Oslo withdrew its bid. The number of demands ran to 7000 pages and included such gems as meetings with the King and a VIP cocktail party! No wonder the Norwegians baulked – most countries would at this arrogant nonsense. No wonder the IOC could not get a democracy to bid for 2022 and had to choose between China and Kazakhstan. No wonder three cities have pulled out of the race for 2024.

It’s time that arrogant FIFA and IOC were chopped down to size. And the only way to do it is for Paris, Los Angeles and Budapest to withdraw from the race for 2024 leaving no bidders to host them. The West should announce that if FIFA and the IOC do not pay for the events and give the host city/country a share of the profits not only will Western countries not bid to host the Olympics or World Cup but they will not take part in them. That would be a disaster for FIFA and the IOC as it could mean that their sponsors – mainly Western companies – pull out and if they do the whole house of cards could collapse.

More and more voters and politicians realise that all they get from hosting the Olympics or the World Cup is a mountain of debt. Therefore they don’t want to host the biggest events in sport. Unless FIFA and the IOC realise that and start coughing up for their parties and giving the hosts a piece of their profits they might find out that only dictatorships like Russia, Qatar, China and Kazakhstan are willing to host them. And quite frankly if that becomes the case it serves them right.

Why international football is becoming a nuisance

This is a fortnight where the most boring event of the football season takes place the international break. The two words “international” and “break” are the most depressing combination of words – apart from “Donald” and “Trump” and “Vince” and “Russo” – that the English language can produce. The Premier League season has just got started we’re getting used to the new players and managers we’ve had the Champions League draw – and no we go to sleep for a fortnight. International breaks are so boring. And I’ve got a plan to get rid of them and I’ll get to that later.

If the boredom that the international break was the only problem international football causes that would be bad enough. But it is now causing another abomination that started last night. Namely the  Checkatrade Trophy (what a terrible name!). But that is not the Trophy’s only problem. The competition used to be for League 1 and 2 (3rd and 4th tier) clubs and gave them their most realistic chance of a Wembley Cup Final appearance*. The Football League (FL) in their infinite (lack of) wisdom decided to include Academy teams of Premier League (PL) clubs. But the plan has not gone well to put it mildly. First of all Liverpool, Arsenal,the two Manchester clubs and Tottenham wanted nothing to do with it meaning that Academies from Championship (second tier) sides were put in to make up the numbers. Secondly the fans of lower division clubs did not approve of the idea (to put it mildly). Last night the hashtag B team Boycott was trending on Twitter and attendances were tiny – 392 at Fleetwood, 461 at Wimbledon and 585 at Accrington for example. And to show how seriously clubs took it Wycombe manager Gareth Ainsworth – who is aged 43 and retired three years ago – named himself as substitute for his club’s game against Northampton and came on. Exeter manager Paul Tisdale named himself as an unused substitute and three teams had 15 year olds in their squads one of whom – Luton – had to ask permission of Connor Tomlinson’s headmaster to let him play (in my opinion the headmaster should have refused. As I wrote in a previous post “Hey football! Leave Them Kids Alone!” 15 year olds should not be at professional clubs anyway).

So if the fans don’t want this tournament in this format and the clubs are so disinterested they are filling their squads with 43 year old managers and schoolchildren why on earth does it exist in its current form? This is where international football is to blame. The practice of top division Academy/B teams has been borrowed from Spain where B teams of top division clubs play in the lower divisions. They can go as far as the second tier but cannot be promoted to the top division even if they finish in the promotion spots (which Atletico Madrid’s B team did in 1998-99). Now because Spain won three international trophies in a row between 2008 and 2012 the English authorities have got into their heads that Spain are doing something right so they want to copy Spain thinking it will improve the England team. Conveniently forgetting that before 2008 Spain had won nothing for 44 years and even botched their own World Cup in 1982. Secondly the authorities don’t realise that most football fans -at whatever level of the game – prefer their own clubs to the national team. I don’t think fans should be forced to see their team play Premier League Academy teams or go through yawn inducing breaks or lose their top players just to prop up a form of the game that is inferior to club football-as Euro 2016 proved – and is discriminatory because your chances of winning at international level depends on a lottery of birth which is not fair.

In my ideal world men’s international football would cease to exist. But since we are not in an ideal world we should allow the clubs to play on Saturday, the national team on Wednesday and the clubs on the next Saturday. And there is an easy solution. The European qualifying process for the 2018 World Cup consists of nine six team groups. The group winners qualify while the eight best runners up go into four playoffs for four more places. Why not have thirteen groups of four teams with the winners qualifying?  It would mean countries playing six qualifiers instead of ten (or twelve in the case of play offs.) It would simplify the qualifying process as only group winners would qualify. With fewer games then you could play them midweek or in the summer – as was done in Britain until the Qualifiers for the 1994 World Cup – you could get rid of yawn inducing international breaks. 

Getting rid of the Checkatrade Trophy in its current form and the international break might not please the FA and FIFA – who have a vested interest in international football as it maintains their power – but most football fans prefer club football and they should not have to put up with the Checkatrade Trophy in its current form or boring international breaks on the (unlikely) chance it helps a team they don’t give a toss about be able to beat Iceland in a last sixteen game in a future international tournament. 

*However fourth teir team Bradford City did get to the League Cup Final in 2013. 

**Originally there were seven groups of six and two groups of five but Gibraltar and Kosovo were added to the tournament after the draw was made. Ludicrous. They joined FIFA too late and should not be allowed to take part – especially Gibraltar which is not even an independent country and will only get hammered anyway.

Time for fair play for cricket’s minnows

In 1974 the Football World Cup in West Germany had 16 teams. Three of them were minnows who were out of their depth. Zaire scored no goals in three games and lost 14, including a 9-0 defeat by Yugoslavia. Their performance was used to ridicule black African football for years to come (they were the first black African team to play at the Football World Cup). Haiti broke Italy’s sequence of 13 internationals without conceding a goal but still lost their three games scoring 2 goals and conceding 14, including a 7-0 defeat by Poland. While although Australia only conceded five goals and gained a point they failed to score.

While those teams were out of their depth traditional football powers like England, Spain, France, the Soviet Union and Uruguay did not qualify. A lot of people thought it was ridiculous that the three minnows were there when the big countries mentioned above were not. UK football journalist Brian Glanville called Zaire “an African team with little right to be there at all”. People called for Africa, Asia and North America to lose their guaranteed places in the Football World Cup.

To FIFA’s credit (this is 1974 remember!) they did not remove the Afro-Asians guaranteed World Cup places. FIFA were well aware if football was to go global it had to allow African and Asian teams access to the World Cup. And only sixteen years later a black African country Cameroon got to the quarter finals of the World Cup and but for two Gary Lineker penalties would have got to the Semi Finals and embarrassed England. It is fair to say that if FIFA had over reacted to the mismatches of 1974 football might have remained a European/South American sport and Major League Soccer in the US would not exist nor would the African players who grace the elite male Leagues of Europe (including of course Riyad Mahrez star of Leicester’s amazing season and surely a dead cert to be England’s Footballer of the Year).

Now to another sport. In 2007 the Cricket World Cup in the Caribbean had 16 teams. And again some were out of their depth. Bermuda lost games by 257 and 243 runs, while Holland lost games by 229 and 221 runs. But unlike the 1974 Football World Cup there were upsets. On one day – March 17 – there were two sensational upsets when Bangladesh and Ireland defeated and eliminated India and Pakistan respectively. And were those triumphs celebrated? No. Wisden Cricketer’s Almanack 2008 (page 1015) said that “the untimely departure of the two subcontinental giants robbed the tournament of several luminaries”. Well so what? Sport is all about giant killings – which is why Leicester are getting so much support. No one has a divine right to win. Incredibly the minnows in cricket got criticised both for being hammered and for causing upsets. Matthew Engel in Wisden Cricketer’s Almanack  2007 (page 18) called the expansion of cricket an “outright menace”. That remark was cricket’s equivalent of the Glanville remark mentioned above and should have got the UK press banned from any sports event held outside of the UK. How in the hell can it be a menace to have more countries playing a sport?

But unfortunately the International Cricket Council (ICC) unlike FIFA back in 1974 over reacted. The next two Cricket World Cups (2011 and 2015) were cut to fourteen teams and the 2019 one will be cut to ten. Incredible. Most other sports are expanding, cricket is going the other way. Cricket has a dreadful image problem. It’s reputation is that it is snobbish and elitist and out of touch with the real world – a sort of sporting equivalent of the UK Conservative Party. Cutting the number of teams in the World Cup does nothing to de toxify the sport. If anything it makes the reputation appear true.

Nor does the Twenty Twenty World Cup – currently being played in India – treat the minnows any better. In theory there are sixteen teams but in practice there are only ten. The big eight get a bye and the other eight teams have to fight for two places in an event that is a qualifying round in everything but name. But six of those eight had to qualify to get to India. In theory they qualify for the World Cup but in practice they qualified for another qualifying round while the big countries were actually playing warm up games during the Qualifying Round – showing arrogant contempt for the minnows.

The World Twenty Twenty really should be split into four groups of four with the top two in each group going into either knockout quarter finals or two further groups of four either way would produce the semi finalists. The ICC won’t do this for fear of either producing mismatches or having big teams knocked out. Yet mismatches are a short term price to pay for the longer term goal of expanding the sport while giant killing is part of sport. England, Italy and Spain all exited the 2014 men’s football World Cup early and the event did not suffer. No team or player should be bigger than the sport.

Cricket likes to think of itself as a model of fair play. Well it is time for the sport to practice what it preaches. It is time for fair play for cricket’s minnows. For contracting the World Cup is anything but fair.

Hey! Football! Leave them kids alone!

In a statement that should shake football to its core, Scotland’s children’s commissioner Tom Baillie (in an article in Tuesday’s Daily Record) said that Scottish football cannot be trusted to look after the welfare of children who play for the country’s top clubs. That reflects something I’ve long thought – that children should not be playing for senior clubs at all.

FIFA have a rule that players under the age of eighteen cannot be transferred to clubs abroad without proper registration (this is the rule that Barcelona broke earning a transfer ban and Real and Atletico Madrid are also accused of breaking. Both Madrid clubs are appealing against transfer bans). This is unusually for FIFA a sensible rule but why is it only applied to transfers abroad? Obviously it’s to prevent young players from being exploited but FIFA don’t realise that even young players moving within a country can be exploited.

The system in Scotland is called pro youth. Yuck! Even its name is nauseating. Young players should not be professionals they should be enjoying themselves playing football at school with their mates. Believe it or not clubs can stop their young players from playing for their school teams – or even in one case according to the Daily Record article – their school’s running club.

If a child wants to leave their professional club they can give 28 days notice but they can only go to schools and recreational football. If at a later date the player joins another professional club that club has to pay £7,500 a year compensation. Bear in mind this is for a child. And there is worse. Former Glasgow Rangers youth boss Jim Sinclair told the Scottish Parliament of a 35,000 fee paid for a 14 year old. That is sick. That frankly is as bad as sending children up chimneys as was done in the UK at one time.

The problem to my mind is two fold. To have 14 year olds playing for  professional clubs youth teams could turn their heads making them think they have achieved something when they haven’t. It also cuts them off from their peers. A lot of people criticise – with some justification – that footballers are cut off from the real world. Some blame high wages but being separated from their fellow youngsters so early cannot help.

Another problem with academies is that they effect players education an important consideration when you consider that the vast majority of teenage players do not make the grade and thus need something to fall back on. Now in theory academies are meant to help players continue studying. But according to Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski (in “Soccernomics”, page 342) “All the boys we met there (the academy), bright or otherwise, were sent to do the same single GNVQ in Leisure and Tourism to fulfill the academy’s minimum education requirement”. No thought of the boys getting qualifications above the minimum then!

So the academy/pro youth system cuts off players from their friends, can make young boys big headed and hinders their education. And I don’t think it is even producing young players that are better than pre academy days. Children should stay at school until they are eighteen – including footballers. They should just be playing for fun with their mates and in their school teams. They should do the same education as their peers. We are putting young players in the gilded cage of academies and pro youth and then we wonder while some – like convicted child offender Adam Johnson – grow up cut off from the real world arrogant and with a sense of entitlement.

Football should just let children enjoy themselves and the game. Professional football clubs should be banned from signing children under eighteen. End of story.

Why FIFA’s presidential election won’t solve their problems

Today should be a day of celebration for football fans. It will mark the end of Sepp Batter’s pathetic disastrous 18 years as FIFA President when his successor is elected. But it is highly likely it won’t be. While some people will doubtless say anyone would be an improvement on ghastly Blatter the five candidates to succeed him are not a distinguished lot (to put it mildly).

Three of them in my opinion would be disasters. One is Sheikh Salman Bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa from Bahrain. He is the former head of Bahrain’s FA and a member of the country’s Royal Family. He has also repeatedly had to deny human rights abuses including torture of his own national team’s players. Even the suspicion of human rights abuses should disqualify a person from being a candidate but incredibly he is the favourite.

Gianni Infantimo from Switzerland is UEFA’S General Secretary. This nonentity is only standing because his boss Michel Plattini is banned from standing. Yet incredibly the English FA is supporting him for some reason that must remain a mystery. As a Swiss football administrator he would represent more of the same (Blatter is Swiss). Incredibly the other European standing Frenchman Jerone Champagne is even worse. This twit said in 2014 that “Football needs to free itself from the shackles of European law”. Garbage. Football should have to obey every law. Everybody else does. That quote on its own should have got him booted out of football for ever. Yet he is a FIFA Presidential candidate. Unbelievable!

That leaves the only two even vaguely credible candidates. Prince Ali Bin Al Hussein of Jordan was the man who had the courage to challenge Blatter last year gaining 73 votes and denying Blatter a first ballot majority. Yet like Michael Heseltine who challenged Margaret Thatcher for the Conservative Party leadership in 1990 he is unlikely to get the ultimate prize. I suspect he got his votes last year simply because he was not Blatter. But a lot of the FIFA presidential electors are – unbelievably – still loyal to Blatter and would vote for him if they could (like Conservative MPs in 1990 who were loyal to Thatcher and hated Heseltine for challenging her). I doubt those who did not vote for Ali last year will vote for him today.

The one I would pick on the ” least worse” basis is South African Tokyo Sexwalle. At least he has some experience of real life – he was an anti apartheid campaigner in South Africa and spent thirteen years on Robben Island with Nelson Mandela – plus the fact that it would be a good idea for a black African to be FIFA President considering white men have made such a balls up of the job. Yet incredibly he is struggling to get votes from his own continent with rumours that the African FAs will vote en masse for Sheikh Salman. One feels knowing the history of FIFA there might be something dodgy going on…

But why is the field so mediocre? Simply because of a rule which is blatantly discriminatory. In order to be a candidate for FIFA President you must have two years involvement in football. But it is football people that got FIFA into this mess in the first place. And it is highly unlikely a football man (since most of the football establishment are men) would be able (or willing) to clean up FIFA. Remember it is the American FBI and the Swiss police that exposed the mess in FIFA in the first place.

The history of sport shows sport does not reform itself but when it is reformed it is done by outsiders. Baseball was cleaned up after the “Black Sox” scandal by judge – and the sport’s first commissioner – Kennesaw Mountain Landis. Cricket was revolutionised in the 1970s by an outsider – Kerry Packer. The revolution in UK football coverage brought by the Premier League was also done by outsiders – Rupert Murdoch of Sky and then Tottenham Hotspur chairman (more famous for being the hirer and firer in the UK version of “the Apprentice”) Alan Sugar. And coming up to date the current story about match fixing in tennis was broken by the BBC and Buzzfeed – more outsiders.

It does not matter who wins tomorrow. Sporting establishments do not change voluntarily. To quote former UK Prime Minister James Callaghan ” Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas “. Sure some cosmetic reforms to appease the hoi polloi might be promised but it will be as little as FIFA think they can get away with. FIFA like the EU is unreformable. The only solution is for the European and American FAs – whose companies bankroll FIFA – to break away set up a new FIFA and start again. But as they won’t have the courage to do it nothing will change in FIFA. Depressing, isn’t it?