Blatter resigns but corruption will likely remain

Photo: REX

Dare we say it? Fifa is a corrupt institution and it goes all the way to the top? Can things be changed?

Answer is no. Not at the pace we have decided upon. At least not as the world's governing soccer body is concerned. Blatter was reelected and it's the equivalent George W Bush of four more years of "how the heck?" for a majority of the population. For Blatter that comes up to about 1 billion people, at least.

But Mr Sepp heard the people. Enough noise was made by everyone inside and outside of Fifa that he had no choice but to resign if he wished to live in some sort of dignity and to leave the organization at a time of transition. A planned escape perhaps?

And while his exit is a welcome sight for pretty much everyone, the inevitable questions about corruption remain.  How deep up the line did the corruption go? Was Blatter involved in transactions carried out by other individuals? Did he personally engage in this behavior?

The real test comes down to Fifa and its minions. Serious changes in culture are needed beyond incarcerating "top officials," even though this is a step further from anything the American government ever did about the culprits behind the financial crisis. Those were powerful, big banks. Here, we're talking about officials from various countries with enormous power on world football decisions, not to mention monetary assets.

How did Russia and Qatar fulfill their World Cup bids?  It's interesting how Russian authorities (including Putin) have labeled US involvement in the corruption charges as an overreach. And many of the overall corruption charges go towards granting Qatar's successful bid for 2022. Let's remember that the Persian Gulf nation has never participated in the tournament. 

And now charges have reached all the way to Ecuador with television rights for the Copa America in the next 3 tournaments, including Chile 2015, under question. Luis Chiriboga, president of Ecuador's soccer association, has been accused of millions of dollars in embezzlement. Even his son has been connected to suspicious activities worth millions of dollars.

How far does this rabbit hole go? Should we replace everyone in command just so the next generation of questionable individuals take charge? One can only hope this won't be the case and we can get back to enjoying the beautiful game on the pitch. For now, kudos to Loretta Lynch for her actions in exposing the top officials that have damaged world football.

Blatter should not be FIFA President again

Photo credit: Vive Deporte

 

Ever since 1998 there has been one true constant for FIFA: Sepp Blatter. He has been elected president 4 times and has hinted he will run for a fifth term. Can FIFA and world soccer afford this?

The answer is no simply because FIFA really deserves new ideas, a new face and a window to a future that has been elusive for at least a decade now. The world of soccer has sped by us so fast in the last four World Cup cycles that it is difficult to fathom a tournament without a breakout African nation, social media magic and the ever expanding worldliness of the game.

And while Blatter may have facilitated some of the more progressive moves in world soccer, such as a rotating World Cup and removing the automatic spot from the previous champion, the pace of evolution has been excruciatingly slow. Soccer should have had goal line technology a decade ago and should be able to have at least six substitutions per game.

A revolution is required for this sport we love so much. While big money interest has taken the World Cup to an unlikely place like Qatar and kept the Club World Cup from becoming relevant, non-European markets like USA and Brazil are becoming more attractive to top stars, the latter which has recalled non other than Ronaldinho in recent years.

What is needed is someone that will advance the laws of the game at a faster pace. It's time for soccer to come out of the shadows of the 1960s in terms of most regulations. There are better ways to make the game more clear, enjoyable and fair without subtracting from its speed. That's what a new president should bring, and if it is Blatter, then these necessary changes will need to wait another couple of World Cup cycles.

Goal-line referees not enough for Ukraine

Photo credit: Sky.com

It has been widely accepted by fans, players, coaches, owners, leagues that some form of technology should be implemented to make the game of soccer more just. In 2010, at the World Cup, unfairness reared its unpleasant face when Frank Lampard's strike versus Germany was ruled not to be a goal when the ball is clearly shown to have crossed the line. For Euro 2012, UEFA made things a bit clearer by adding two additional referees at each goal. It was hoped that they could see actions unnoticed by the other officials.

Alas, the goal-line referees weren't enough either. In yesterday's match for the final game of group play between Ukraine and England, Marko Devic's strike past Joe Hart was cleared off the goal line by John Terry. So England fans hoped, and so saw the goal-line ref. But video playback shows that Terry clears the ball after it has completely crossed the line. In essence: goal.

So what now? FIFA has been looking into two different types of goal-line technology to circumvent the kind of situation mentioned above. One uses camera-based technology (Hawk-Eye) while the other (GoalRef) utilizes magnetic sensors to track the ball's path. A decision is set for July 5th and Sepp Blatter himself has said he will not go into Brazil 2014 without goal-line tech.

But why has it taken this long? Why do we have to ask this question? Michel Platini's argument that a goal-line referee would perform the same action is clearly flawed after yesterday's events, but it points to the old guard's elusiveness when it comes to amending the laws of the game.

Some of the American argument for why the game isn't as popular in this country is the lack of playback or assisting technology that is so prevalent in the National Football League. Maybe soccer could take on some American football rules for a change: how about a challenge allowed per team per half? You already have 3-4 minutes of stoppage time in average, so why not add another minute? Purity should give way to fairness in this world we live in. Nowadays everyone can look at the same angle whether on a TV screen, computer or smartphone. Suddenly we are all smarter than the referees. Why can't they use the same technology to upgrade their capabilities also?

No Racism in Soccer

Photo credit: dailymail.co.uk

There is a disease in this world more harmful to mankind than any other: prejudice. To this day, its ugly roots tend to go unchecked no matter who our president is or who our idols are. It touches us as nasty afterthoughts and cold stares. And it makes its way into football as well.

A month or so ago, the president of FIFA, Sepp Blatter, argued that racism wasn't a factor in football. Whatever was said on the pitch should remain on the pitch and be between players and that was it. Really? I don't think that's the case when Mario Balotelli gets bananas thrown at him in Italy or when Oguchi Onyewu is insulted by players from a different squad, or even when Anton Ferdinand (brother of Rio Ferdinand) is verbally abused by fellow England national team defender John Terry. No, Mr Blatter, there is a serious, unnecessary situation here.

Couple all of the above with the obvious lack of any coaches of African descent in any of the Premier League teams. And then there is the recent altercation between Liverpool's Uruguayan ace Luis Suarez and Manchester United's iconic defender Patrice Evra. Suarez made racist remarks during a marquee match. Evra wasn't pleased and brought it to the FA.

So there you have it. It's distracting, it's a problem and it should be dealt with. You don't hear much about this sort of thing in other sports, at least none as prominent as what has been happening in soccer during the past couple of years. Let's not forget that an incendiary comment by Materazzi caused Zinedine Zidane to flare with emotion and head butt himself out of the final of 2006 and close the chapter for a talented French team that deserved better. Zidane should have known better but certain comments should not be allowed if they interfere with a person's integrity.

We are all guilty of prejudice at one point or another. But we are all capable of restraint even in the most dire of circumstances. It's what separates humans from other animals. Our cerebral cortex is made and meant to supersede instincts that can be detrimental. This isn't meant to be a rant. It's just a reminder that we are capable of more, especially for a game that we love so much.

Revolutionizing FIFA

These days to speak of revolution means to reclaim right to free speech, free assembly, democracy and to ending the avarice of the establishment. We also instantly imagine Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, and the freedom of the Arab world. These sentiments can also be felt elsewhere in the world, away from oppressive governments. Just recently, Grant Wahl, soccer journalist for Sports Illustrated stated that he would run for president of FIFA.

How can this be? Is it legal? Does he have a shot? Should we care? Maybe not all of the above, but it certainly raises various questions. Wahl's main concern is the purported despise that world soccer fans have towards FIFA's current president, Sepp Blatter. And it isn't only the fans. Plenty of soccer journalists have displayed their discontent with the FIFA leadership.

In all fairness, this is bound to not come to fruition. Wahl, who also authored "The Beckham Experiment," requires the vote of at least 1 member nation (203 associations) to vote for him in order to be a viable candidate. Does anyone take the risk? Why shouldn't they? Why should they? All relevant questions.

They should if they feel the World Cup selection committee is mired by corruption. How does Qatar win the selection over the US or Australia? Is there soccer logic in this? Should there be? And what about the veto on high-altitude games (>2,500 meters)? That rules out Quito and La Paz. Who came up with this idea anyway? Perhaps the same people that thought "FIFA should suspend the World Cup if Brazil doesn't qualify."

But there should not be a vote for Wahl if your nation is trying to stay true to the game, true to the lack of video playback or additional referees, true to the continuation of World Cup rotation among conferences, true to the fact that all people, regardless of beliefs in their personal lives, have the right to attend matches anywhere in the world. There should also not be a vote if the Gold Cup is to remain in one place (USA) for every tournament and every 2 years (only 1 out of 2 in a World Cup cycle counts towards qualification for the Confederations Cup). There should not be a vote if Concacaf and Conmebol can't play together in a "Copa Americas" or a unified club tournament.

I believe in democracy. I believe in the choice of the people. If Blatter is the only candidate, then by all means he should be the president. He's an extremely intelligent, successful, and highly influential individual and he has helped FIFA reach out to Africa and Asia. Give him credit for that. Still, isn't it a bit odd that in my whole life there have only been two presidents of the world soccer governing body? Havelange was president for 24 years, Blatter has done so for 13.

Grant Wahl's candidacy is a hopeful dream, a mere pin drop at a construction site, but his idea and his action does show people out there care about the future of the game: the every-fan. And great candidates are out there. I, for one, would like to see Michel Platini get a chance to run FIFA. His message of solidarity and universality. He has worked to curtail the monopoly of big clubs in Europe and their perennial status as "champions" in the UEFA Champions League. Smaller nations have champions too, he argues. I must say I agree. Salary caps and limiting international players in club teams, as well as his fight against international transfer of minors are also major steps forward.

In the end, Wahl's candidacy and even his election is ultimately irrelevant to what he could achieve with his platform. It is the establishment, the committees in control of FIFA that are responsible for the rules of the game. Blatter is just a spokesperson. Still, the question remains about how much fans are willing to stand for. On the other hand, most American college football fans aren't keen on the BCS and/or bowl system, but the status quo remains in place. I merely suggest that we take the public's suggestions into account, regardless of the sport. I love the game and I only hope that it becomes more beautiful one goal at a time.

MLS 2009 Attendance stats week 20

Beckham's arrival begins to show its face in attendance statistics, albeit at a more muted scale this time around. For example, his game this week was at Kansas City and it wasn't held at Arrowhead. Instead, the match was held at an expanded Community America Ballpark (about 1500 more seats than normal). Notice that using the 09-08 difference plot we see that RSL has recovered to about the same attendance average as last year. Colorado is also recovering. Further, these two teams have not had the Becks circus come to town.

No Becks in MLS this weekend. Instead it's a sold out Rose Bowl for Galaxy vs Barcelona. A quality match for sure. How come we can't get these huge numbers to turn out for MLS matches? The World Football Challenge with Inter, AC Milan, Chelsea and Club America drew no less than 50,000 each for the games played. If we could get a good 10-15% of these true football fans then MLS would surely get a boost.

Another area that MLS should be working on developing is the Concacaf Champions League. DCU managed no more than a tie against lowly Firpo from El Salvador. An early exit... again? More on that on a later post.

Finally, to round this week's MLS discussion is the current MLS schedule. Whilst I question the setup (spring to fall instead of fall to spring as is done in Europe and most regions of the world), we also have to keep in mind venues like Colorado, Chicago and Toronto. These are usually in deep freeze from December to February. Sepp Blatter, president of FIFA, recently discussed MLS's schedule and why it wasn't attracting better players. Interesting points except for the obvious points mentioned above (Chicago, Toronto). He advocates a fall to spring season. Then again, there are plenty of leagues in Scandinavia, Russia, among others, that have a sizable break during the winter. This is something worth considering. You can catch Blatter's discussion below.