“Are there any questions about football?” asked a tired-looking Prince Ali, perhaps more in hope than expectation, after answering yet another about his FIFA presidential credentials as he blinked into a phalanx of whirring cameras.
When Michel Platini announced last summer that he had decided against taking on Sepp Blatter for the Fifa presidency, most seasoned observers of election processes shrugged their shoulders and looked beyond Uefa for a credible challenger to Blatter’s turbulent reign.
Back in the late 1990s as a passionate Tottenham Hotspur fan – which I still am – I was mesmerised watching David Ginola. He may have played at a number of other clubs, both in England and his native France, but it was at Tottenham where his silky skills were wholeheartedly embraced by the fans who elevated him to near-legendary status.
A courageous and defiant move by FIFA’s most principled young reformer or a foolhardy risk that could backfire? Reaction to Prince Ali’s overnight announcement that he has decided to take on Sepp Blatter for the FIFA presidency looks certain to move into overdrive in the coming days.
As Sepp Blatter strapped in his seatbelt, lay back and sipped his first drink, alcoholic or otherwise, as he flew out of Morocco following one of the most tempestuous weeks of his 16-year FIFA presidency, he probably allowed him a wry smile.
Another clever delaying tactic deliberately timed so that Sepp Blatter can turn his attention to retaining the presidency without the distraction of corruption allegations? Or, just as plausibly, a clear signal of intent to try and repair the damage and get to the bottom of a saga which, it now transpires, could involve criminal activity by football administrators?
It was supposed to be all about closure for FIFA. Done and dusted. No more subterfuge. No more finger pointing. Time to move on. After all, there’s a presidential election next year.
Why now, who leaked the information and what could the impact be on FIFA? Those are just three intriguing questions being asked in the wake of the stunning revelations in the New York Daily News that Chuck Blazer, who strode the corridors of power at FIFA for more than a generation, turned FBI informant to spy on several of his colleagues.
When UEFA president Michel Platini decided to expand the European Championship finals from 16 to 24 countries, starting in 2016 in his homeland, the purists threw their collective arms up in the air, screamed “Zut alors” – or far worse – and accused the Frenchman of being seriously misguided.
Publish Michael Garcia’s report or be damned. The clarion call to FIFA from a collective raft of influential football powerbrokers, anti-corruption watchdogs and vast swathes of the media intensifies on an almost daily basis.
No-one could possibly argue with Wembley being chosen as host for the climax of Euro 2020. England’s national stadium is among the finest in the world while the country had the best bid and has not held a major football tournament since 1996. But anyone who believes there was no politics involved in last week’s decision by UEFA’s executive committee should think again.
Two months ago, when UEFA president Michel Platini was still weighing up whether to run for the top job in world football, it became abundantly clear in the build-up to the FIFA Congress in Sao Paulo that Europe was massively outnumbered in its opposition to a fifth term for Sepp Blatter.
So why did Platini not declare there and then that it was too risky to take on the wily old Swiss? It’s a fair question and one Platini was asked about when he finally announced,
The recent reshuffle within the corridors of power at the South American confederation, Conmebol, following the death of its FIFA vice-president Julio Grondona, made for interesting reading. Not so much because of the personnel involved but because of the political structure that was put in place with regard to FIFA representation.
By Andrew Warshaw
July 9 – In this most extraordinary and unpredictable of World Cups, nothing even came close to the humiliation of brutal proportions that unfolded in Belo Horizonte. Anyone who has watched Brazil during the tournament knows that the squad, for all the expectations, was full of deficiencies, a far cry from the great Brazilian teams of the past.
It was the most eagerly awaited of FIFA’s daily World Cup media briefings and the questions came thick and fast. Why, asked one highly respected news agency reporter, was FIFA preaching zero tolerance towards racism when zero action on the ground was in fact the reality?
It was a fair point but few, if anybody, expected the two distinguished members of the panel to provide such diametrically opposed responses.
Sometimes, quite fairly,