FIFA report into corruption is exposed as corrupt!

FIFA is a joke.

The report about alleged corruption in the bidding processes for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups has been exposed as not being wholly representative of the investigations! So, basically the report of the investigation of corruption is corrupt!

And to add farce into the bargain, FIFA didn't miss the chance to have a pop at England saying that England's bid for the 2018 World Cup flouted bidding rules.

FIFA hates England.

So FIFA will reject, deny and go contrary to anything that England does. The chance of England hosting a World Cup in the next 50 years is zero.

But let's ignore the allegations of corruption for a moment. The fact is that the choice of Qatar as the host for the 2022 World Cup is just plain wrong. The tournament cannot be played in the month of July, as it normally id, causing fixture disruption around the world. And Qatar has never qualified for any World Cup final tournament - ever.

As for Russia - it doesn't have a great record on human rights, and the conflict with Ukraine continues to simmer. CSKA Moscow has just been punished for its fans' racist abuse - again. Why does FIFA reward countries like this?

Go figure.

Referees are failing to apply the laws of the game

According to the BBC:

'Fifa vice-president Jim Boyce says referees have not been told to be lenient at the 2014 World Cup.

Some officials have been criticised for opting not to caution players during matches, with the average number of yellow cards per game just below three.

Boyce says: "I think the refereeing has been superb and it has not happened by chance.

"The referees have been told to only send a player off if they were 100% certain it was a red card, but nothing has ever been said about being lenient." '

The refereeing has emphatically NOT been superb at this World Cup and sadly, it is the delusion of FIFA that means that we have to suffer this poor refereeing on and on.

Quite simply, the referees do not apply the laws of the game. This leads to players taking small advantages, which become the norm, then the players try to take bigger advantages until they expect them to become the norm too.

A prime example is the ball in the corner quadrant. A few years ago this was changed so that the ball only had to overhang the quadrant line. This was as a direct result of players putting the ball outside the line. FIFA caved in and went with the players.

Here are some examples of laws which referees have ignored at this World Cup:

1. Gain of yardage at throw-ins. About 15 yards seems to be the expected gain.
2. Gain of yardage at free-kicks. Players stand where the offence took place and chuck the ball about fifteen yards forward (with minimal back spin).
3. Not booking players for waving imaginary yellow cards. This was expressly stated by FIFA, yet has not happened in any single case.
4. Encroachment of walls and players at free-kicks. Yes, we've all seen the magic spray, but the referees only ever draw it IN FRONT of the defenders. Why? Just walk the ten yards, draw the line and order the defenders to get behind the line. Oh yes, and BEHIND the line, not on it as some players have done.
5. Diving and simulation. It goes on. We all know it goes on. Yet not one culprit has been punished.
6. Time keeping (1). The added-on time is supposed to be a minimum, yet referees at this World Cup (indeed, all non-English matches), the time shown on the board is a MAXIMUM, with referees often blowing up before the time is up.
7. Time keeping (2). Substitutions, as one example, are supposed to result in an extra thirty seconds being added on. Yet, if a player is substituted during added on time,we never get the extra thirty seconds.
8. Time keeping (3). There has been a trend in this World Cup for goal celebrations to take up to two minutes. This is deliberate time wasting by the scoring team, and we never get this time back.
9. Not putting the ball on the penalty spot. Based on the "overhang at corner quadrant" rule change, players now seem to think they can put the ball near the penalty spot, just so long as it overhangs the spot.
10. Not booking players for foul play. There have been many examples. The Brazil v Colombia game was a farce.
11. Not allowing corner kicks to be taken! Yes, the old "Ryan Giggs" corner kick has been disallowed twice in this World Cup - once by Howard Webb. WHY?

Some may argue that of these points are trivial. "Oh, it doesn't matter if he gains five yards from a free-kick," they may claim. To which I would say, "If it doesn't matter, don't do it!"

Referees do not allow free-kicks to be taken with a moving ball (quite rightly), yet they are happy to let fifteen yards be gained. WHY?

Not applying the rules leads to players taking advantage, which then leads to cheating. Rugby referees apply the rules in their sport. Why don't football referees?

Lenient refereeing backs Brazil's niggling style

I'm not entirely comfortable with the way Brazil have progressed to the semi-final in this World Cup. This is certainly not the 'samba-style', free-flowing football Brazil of old. This team has no qualms about fouling, breaking up the game, niggling, and relying on support from the crowd, and, sadly, help from referees.

In my last point, I don't mean that the referees are 'crooked' in any way, but with 60,000+ supporters roaring at you, you can't help but be a little bit swayed - however much you try. The last Brazil game (v. Colombia) was, however, appallingly refereed by Carlos Velasco Carballo of Spain. He was so lenient that the game became almost a free-for-all, with Brazil being the worst culprits. Fernandinho's treatment of James Rodriguez was scandalous, yet the Brazilian - who should have been sent off - didn't even get a yellow card. To add ironic insult to injury, the referee did book Rodriguez for a contactless tackle.

Brazil were able to complain afterwards about how Zuniga caused the injury to their Number Ten Neymar, but the referee did play an advantage in Brazil's favour and to book Zuniga would have been contrary to his handling of the game.

Incredibly, the referee did book Brazil's Thiago Silva for preventing the the Colombian goalkeeper from clearing the ball and kicking into the Colombian net. Considering the number and type of fouls going on in the rest of this game, that decision was laughable. But it had the very serious effect of banning Silva from the semi-final.

I have no doubt in my mind that FIFA have told referees to book as few players as possible to try and ensure that the 'big players' remain available for the later rounds. Carballo will be in trouble for getting Silva banned.

For the good of football, however, it would be better if referees clamped down on fouling and got the dirty players removed from matches.

Uruguay should realise that Suarez has a problem and deal with it

I have been rather annoyed by Luis Suarez's and the Uruguayans' reaction to the punishment given to the player by FIFA after the biting incident last week.

Prior to that, after Uruguay had beaten England thanks to the brilliance of the striker, he claimed that he was driven by the disrespect shown to him in England. This is quite ridiculous. Firstly, he was signed by Liverpool when suspended by Ajax for biting - not a good start. Then there was the racist incident with Patrice Evra. Then there was the biting of Branislav Ivanovic. Surely enough to try the patience of any Liverpool fan, let alone fans of opposition or any media! AND YET, even after all that we were appreciative enough of Suarez's undoubted footballing abilities to vote him Football of the Year - twice! Once by the PFA and once by the PRESS! If that's not respect, I don't know what is.

After the World Cup biting incident Uruguay tried to point the finger at the English media for trying to get the longest ban possible for Suarez. I doubt they did that, but I do expect there were calls for the punishment to fit the crime. And, as we have seen, this was his THIRD biting incident.

Uruguay also claimed that FIFA had been influenced by the English media in giving Suarez a nine-game international ban and an all-football ban for four months. That's probably the most laughable accusation of all. The idea that FIFA would listen to anything the English media say is hilarious - they never listened when it came to choosing venues for future World Cups, for example.

Suarez now claims the 'bite' was some sort of accident, that he 'lost his balance and fell onto his opponent'. Just watch the clip back, Mr Suarez, to realise how embarrassing that claim is.

This was a deliberate and unprovoked bite of Italy's Giorgio Chiellini.

Uruguay as a country appears to be fully supporting Suarez. Methinks it's more to do with them being so reliant on his goals, than belief in his character. Remember 1998 when David Beckham kicked out at an Argentinian, was sent off and England lost the game on penalties? Beckham was Public Enemy No. 1 and vilified for years by the English press and football fans until he redeemed himself by showing good character over the next few years.

A little bit of remorse from Uruguay and an apology from Suarez would be a good start. Then perhaps Uruguay should give the player some assistance in getting over his biting problems. Instead, they are apparently appealing against the ban. FIFA should double it for wasting their time.

To try and place any blame at England's door for this is a farce. Suarez is the problem. Deal with it.

FIFA must not be toothless on Suarez affair

It's absolutely indefensible, but some are trying to defend Luis Suarez's bite on Giorgio Chiellini. "Apologists", I think they are being called. They range from the Uruguayan press to Liverpool fans.

FIFA must make an example of Suarez, who, by the way, I think is a magnificent footballer and, for that, I respect him immensely. But Suarez has bitten opponents, not once before, but TWICE before, making this his third biting offence.

Simply unbelievable.

Some are saying he needs help, and I would agree, and I think he should be given time for such help away from a football field. This is a great shame for Liverpool, but noises are that Suarez would have been on the move anyway (maybe not now).

So what will FIFA do? They must ban Suarez from all football, but for how long? How long would feel to short? How long would feel too long?

Six matches? Too short.
A year? Too long?
Three months? Getting nearer.
Six months? Getting nearer.

FIFA must act forcefully and must not (forgive he pun) be seen to be toothless.

Poor refereeing decisions give Brazil a flying start

Oh dear, just what we didn't want - controversial decisions and a dubious refereeing performance. Mr Yuichi Nishimura got two key decisions wrong - the penalty gift to Brazil and Croatia's disallowed goal - which made it 2-1 to Brazil when it might have been 2-1 to Croatia. I'm not convinced Neymar's swinging arm was worth a red card, but got the yellow it deserved.

Of course, in a few days' time - when most teams have played and the tournament has other talking points - these decisions in the opening game will be largely forgotten. Croatia will probably qualify from Group A - they looked more than capable of doing so - and things will quieten down.

BUT, these poor decisions have given Brazil lift-off. Imagine if they had only managed to claw back to salvage a 2-2 draw. Imagine if Neymar had been sent off - and banned from the next game. That would have put a whole different complexion on proceedings.

We have had a whole lot of punter reaction to the decisions, but what do FIFA say? Nothing. Their website has a quote from Brazil boss Felipe Scolari and their 'match report' contains only facts and figures.

We don't want a tournament ruined by poor refereeing.

I did like the shaving foam sprayed down for ten yards at free kicks, though!

How deadly is England's Group of Death?

So apparently England find themselves in another "Group of Death" in Brazil 2014. But just how deadly is it?

Group D consists of England (13th in the FIFA rankings), Uruguay (6), Italy (7) and Costa Rica (31). If we use a simple addition of the ranking positions to get a total for the group, this comes to 57, and is the second toughest group in these terms.

The hardest group of all is Group G, consisting of Germany (2), Portugal (5), USA (14) and Ghana (24). I can't imagine Germany being too fazed, though, can you? 45 points.

Next is Group C (perhaps surprisingly), consisting of Colombia (4), Greece (12), Ivory Coast (17) and Japan (48). 81 points.

Fourth hardest group is B, with Spain (1), Netherlands (9), Chile (59) and Australia (59 - currently the lowest ranked team in the competition). 84 points.

Fourth easiest group is E, with Switzerland (8), France (19), Ecuador (23), Honduras (41). Total 91 points.

Next is Group A, consisting of Brazil (10), Croatia (16), Mexico (20), Cameroon (51). Total 97 points.

The second easiest group, by rankings, is Group F, with Argentina (3), Bosnia-Herzegovina (21), Nigeria (36), Iran (45). Total 105 points.

And, presumably, the Group of Cruise is Group H, with: Belgium (11), Russia (22), Algeria (26), South Korea (54). Total 113 points.

It is interesting to note that England are the highest third ranked team in any group. and four groups have a second best team that is lower ranked than England. England's group also has the second best fourth ranked team.

Also, by World Cup Winners (by descending order of total rankings);
Group G has one (Germany) with three wins in total.
Group D has three winners (Uruguay (2), Italy (4), England (1)) for seven wins in total.
Group C: Nil wins.
Group B: One winner, Spain (1).
Group E: One winner, France (1).
Group A: One winner, Brazil (5 times winners).
Group F: One winner, Argentina (2).
Group H: Nil wins.

England's group is indeed a killer.

I know that FIFA don't actually "seed" teams, but put them in pots according to Confederation and other political considerations. It doesn't always lead to the most level of playing fields.

Pointless rules in place as technology is ignored

So, what happened to the rule about sock tape having to be the same colour as socks?

Preyed on by some referees in park football, forcing poor park footballers to remove tape keeping their shin pads in place in the early weeks of this season, it is apparently a rule which top referees such as Mike Dean now feel is unnecessary to enforce.

On Sunday afternoon, it was quite clear that at least Gareth Barry and David Silva of Manchester City had white tape (or at least a very strange whiter shade of blue) on their sky blue socks in their game against Arsenal. James Milner had a much darker blue tape.

But who cares? The rule is quite unnecessary. What is it for? In the same game, Arsenal's white socks had a thin blue and a thin red hoop around the middle.

Is the rule to differentiate the players of one team from another in some way?

The same question applies to the 'same colour undershorts' rule? What's it for - especially at park football level?

If it's to differentiate the players, then let's start with the shorts themselves. In the same Arsenal v Manchester City game on Sunday, both sets of players wore white shorts!

Fifa is quick to implement such pointless rules. In the meantime, as they filibuster about goal-line technology, goals continue to be allowed or disallowed incorrectly.

Get your priorities right, Fifa.

Blatter back in as FIFA president

So Sepp Blatter was re-elected unopposed as President of FIFA yesterday.

The FA's "too-little-too-late" attempt to postpone the election in the light of corruption investigations and unopposed candidacy was mocked and scorned by a succession of speakers from Haiti, Congo, Fiji, Benin and Cyprus. They called the FA's stance unconstituional and said that the interference from media and politicians was unwarranted. I'll bet.

The FA went out on a limb, with little support, and their position was defeated as 172 delegates (of 206) voted to continue to the election. Blatter was re-elected. "Today something marvellous happened and I'd simply like to tell you I'm deeply moved and honoured. It's a challenge, a new one for me, and I accept it," he said, in somehwat mock surprise.


Is there any light at the end of this murky FIFA tunnel?

Well, maybe the corruption investigations will find something to stick.

It appears that the way World Cup venues are chosen will change to encompass votes from ALL the delegates rather than the 24-man executive committee. That should make it more difficult for widespread corruption from potential hosts.

There were words (let's hope, not platitudes) around making FIFA more transparent and to "restart the credibility of FIFA". Blatter said: "Everyone was waiting for solutions - now we will apply them."


I'll not be holding my breath.

Sponsors voice concerns about FIFA

Now sponsors are apparently getting twitchy about the goings-on within FIFA.

President Sepp Blatter has stated that the organisation is not in crisis, but both Coca-Cola and Adidas have voiced their concerns.

A a Coca-Cola spokesperson said: "The current allegations being raised are distressing and bad for the sport."


An Adidas spokesman said: "The negative tenor of the public debate around Fifa at the moment is neither good for football nor for Fifa and its partners."

Blatter is now unopposed for the presidency of FIFA (vot on Wednesday) after Mohamed Bin Hammam dropped out of the race following recent allegations.

"Football is not in a crisis, only some difficulties," Blatter claimed.

Where does the power lie in FIFA?

I read that Fifa executive committee members Amos Adamu and Reynald Temarii have appealed against suspensions imposed upon after corruption allegations in 2010.

Nigeria's Adamu, caught seeking bribes from undercover reporters, was banned for three years and Temarii, from Tahiti, received a one-year ban for breaching confidentiality rules, but was cleared of corruption.

Both men were unable to vote on the hosts for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups in December.

Their cases will be heard by Fifa's Independent Appeals Committee, chaired by Bermuda Football Association president Larry Mussenden.

In February the Confederation for African Football (Caf) has its annual assembly in Khartoum, Sudan, where it will choose two delegates for the 24-member Fifa ruling body.

Now forgive me, but Nigeria (32) [perhaps honourably excepted), Tahiti (183), Bermuda (172), Sudan (100) are not exactly world leaders when it comes to football. Of 207 nations listed on FIFA's official rankings, it seems to me that too many down at the lower end have too much influence in what goes on in the world game. How can so many from so low down be on a 24-man committee?

Now I'll gather up my aspersions.

World Cup bidding process is a sham

So FIFA gave the 2018 and 2022 World Cups to Russia and Qatar.

Let's ignore Russia for the moment.

Qatar? Never qualified for the World Cup; 113th in FIFA's own ranking; population 1.7 million; average temperature in July: up to 46 degrees C.

This is crazy! What has Qatar got to do with football? They might as well hold the Ashes in Finland.

Back to Russia: Qualified for 9 World Cups as either Soviet Union or Russia; 13th in the rankings; population 141 million.

Neither the Russian bid nor the Qatari bid was considered the best, yet they both won. Both of them were considered riskier than most of the other bids, yet they won.

The World Cup hosting bidding process is a sham (and I don't necessarily mean corrupt). It is obvious that minds were made up months or years ago. It is obvious that FIFA want to push the boundaries of football beyond their paymasters (Western Europe) to reach the four corners of their flat world.

OK, that's fine, but don't pretend otherwise. Don't pretend that there is any merit in the bidding process. Just say: if you've got loads of money (from oil would be handy) to build big stadiums and you've not held the World Cup before, then send us your bid; but if you're a tired old footballing nation, don't bother.

Let's have some honesty and transparency, FIFA.

World Cup hosts? Vote for England and Australia

And so we close in on the FIFA votes for the hosts for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups.

After all the controversy, allegations and, no doubt, nods and winks, the votes will take place tomorrow.

There are four bids in the running for the 2018 World Cup, one of which, of course, is England. By the time 2018 comes round it will be 52 years since England hosted the World Cup. For the game's mother-country, this is, in my opinion, far too long. Other bids are Spain AND Portugal and Belgium AND Holland. Personally, I don't go for joint bids, and how is it that Spain - who hosted the tournament in 1982 - could host it alone then, but can't now? The final bid is from Russia, which one can only imagine would not be nearly as welcoming as England.

Obviously, being English, I am biased, but I fervently hope the World Cup "comes home" in 2018, and that all the reports in The Times and Panorama do not influence the final votes.

Sadly, I think it will prove to be a forlorn hope.

As for 2022, there are five bids: Australia, South Korea, Qatar, USA, Japan.

What South Korea and Japan are doing bidding for this World Cup, I can't understand, as they jointly held it so recently in 2002. That would be ridiculously soon, and the USA hosted it in1994. To my mind, you can't invite a country who has never qualified for the World Cup final stages (Qatar) to host the tournament, so my vote would go to the Aussies. We know they'd host a superb tournament.

FIFA reputation damaged without doubt

A FIFA member has admitted that the recent allegations of vote-rigging have damaged FIFA and the World Cup.

"I'm sure there's damage for Fifa and for the World Cup," Fifa executive member Junji Ogura told BBC Sport. Too right it is.

Two executive committee members, Nigerian Amos Adamu and Tahitian Reynald Temarii have been provisionally suspended from the committee, and face corrpution charges. Both deny any wrongdoing, despite being accused of asking for money from a USA World Cup consortium in a Sunday Times expose.

Because the Sunday Times is an English newspaper, it is thought that the English no longer has enough backing to win the vote for the 2018 World Cup. Yet, it's not the bidders who tried to expose any wrongdoing.

I don't know what's worse: the possibility of FIFA vote rigging, or the fact that exposure could damage the English bid.

This is my forecast:

• The two committee members will not receive any sanction and will be returend to their positions on the committee.
• England will lose the vote for the 2018 World Cup.
• Other newspapers will expose further allegations of corruption within FIFA.
• FIFA's reputation will sink further.

Sunday Times trap may have scuppered 2018 World Cup bid

It looks as though the Sunday Times investigation into FIFA voting for World Cup hosting may have scuppered the England bid for the 2018 World Cup.

The bid has reportedly been “significantly harmed” according to a key member of the English campaign team, which goes against a FIFA executive committee member saying there would be no backlash against the bid.

The vote takes place on 2 December, with FIFA officials unhappy about the Sunday Times probe into voting practices.

A member of the bid team told the BBC: “The question is: can we recover from this? FIFA members feel they are being persecuted by the British media. It isn't dead and the next two or three weeks will be delicate but England's bid has been damaged and it's going to take a lot of hard work to repair that damage."

Two FIFA executive committee members (from Nigeria and Tahiti) were exposed in a Sunday Times trap and the ethics committee of FIFA is meeting on 15-17 November to decide on any further action.

FIFA president Sepp Blatter said last week: “One can ask whether such an action is appropriate, trying to set traps for people. It is a deeply rooted problem [with the English media]. Who is benefiting from this situation and who is being harmed? We are asking ourselves why did it happen and why did it happen specifically by English journalists? We are looking at that."

It looks like an own goal by the Sunday Times to me.

FIFA's refereeing changes are long overdue

Let’s hope FIFA mean what they say when they announced yesterday that this would be the last World Cup with the current refereeing system. It needs a change, and not just for scandalously erroneous decisions like Frank Lampard’s non-goal for England in the second round against Germany.

That failed decision, though, was the thrust of the comments made by FIFA general secretary Jerome Valcke, who said: “We're talking about a goal not seen by the referee which is why we are talking about new technology.” He suggested that two extra goal-line referees (as trialled by the Europa Cup last season, and to be used in the Champions League this season) could be used in future World Cups.

“Let's see if this system will help or whether giving the referee an additional four eyes will give him the comfort and make duty easier to perform,” added Valcke. “I would say that it is the final World Cup with the current refereeing system.”

“The game is so fast, the ball is flying so quickly, we have to help them and we have to do something and that's why I say it is the last World Cup under the current system,” Valcke said.

Opponents to goal-line technology have pointed to concerns over universality - that all levels of the game will not be able to use the same rules and methods of refereeing.

As someone who has been involved in football at the lowest level, let me tell them that most park games have reluctant “linesmen” from each side – sometimes substitutes. The thought of trying to raise an extra linesman per side to man the goal lines is difficult to conceive. So the game is different at different levels already.

The fact is that park football bears little relation to games at the World Cup. How can multi-million pound games be subject to the same errors that a park referee might get pilloried for? Surely the point at the highest level should be to get the correct decision.

IFAB is the body that makes the game’s rules. It consists of representatives of the English, Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh FAs as well as four representatives from FIFA. Due to hold a meeting on 21 July, it is certain these issues will be discussed, but decisions may not be reached until future meetings.

Changes are long overdue.

Blatter apologises to England for goal that wasn't given

Breaking news is that Fifa president Sepp Blatter says that the debate on goal-line technology will be reopened when the International FA Board meets in July.

He has apologised to the Football Association over Frank Lampard's disallowed goal in England's World Cup defeat by Germany. The ball clearly crossed the line in the 4-1 loss when the score was 2-1. England might have been outplayed, but an equalising goal could have changed the whole pattern of the game.
 
It seems obvious to me that 21st Century technology should be used to ensure we get the right decisions in football. Technology is used in rugby, cricket, tennis, ice hockey, motor racing... Why should football remain in the 19th Century?
 
Fears of hold-ups in play can be allayed because two potential solutions ("Smart Ball" and "Hawkeye") can relay the information to the referee in less than a second. "Goal" or "Play-on" in an instant. and no arguments.
 
No, the use of technology cannot be repeated down to all levels of the game (one of FIFA's concerns), but they should not kid themselves that a park game is as important as a World Cup game. This is not something to start at the bottom. Start at the top with decisions on ball over the line for goals and see where it develops from there.
 
A final point of irony. Assistant referees are all too keen to raie their flags for a throw-in when the ball so much as touches the touchline (it should really be completely over it), but they seem reluctant to give a goal unless the ball actually hits the net!

FIFA is to blame for the lack of goals

We have now had 14 games in this World Cup. There have been 23 goals, giving us a paltry average of 1.64 goals per game. Twenty-eight of the 32 teams have now played, and 11 of them have failed to score a goal.

So far, it is without doubt the most boring World Cup ever. Where are the goals? Where is the excitement?

Why is this and what could FIFA do about it in future?

I guess there are several reasons why there are not many goals.

It could be the much talked about ball which, rather than causing problems for goalkeepers, is actually proving more of a problem to outfield players, many of whom are overhitting the ball in a number of situations. In future, FIFA should introduce the ball 12 months befor the World Cup and give every nation the opportunity to use it. And they should stop getting lighter balls. What is the purpose of that? They are just less controllable.

It could be that there is a fear of losing the first game. If that is the case, then we should the games open up in the second phase of group matches, due to start this evening with South Africa v Uruguay. If it does turn out to be true, then maybe FIFA should make it four points for a win, or maybe four points for a win in the first game. Radical! But something drastic needs to be done improve the entertainment and desire to win.

I think one of the main reasons - and it's FIFA's fault - is that the playing field is uneven. No, not literally - the fields are all excellent. What I mean is that the referees and assistants are biased towards defenders. They probably don't even realise they are, but they are. Take this scenario. It's a corner, and two pairs of players are grappling. In one pair the defender is obviously fouling the attacker; in the other the attacker is obviously fouling the defender. The referee can't give both free-kicks. What does he do? He will ALWAYS give the kick to the defender against the attacker.

Another scenario: a slight push on a defender by an attacker and the defender throws himself to the floor; result: a free-kick to the defence. OR, a slight push on the attacker by the defender in the box and the attacker throws himself to the floor; result: nothing given, except a possible booking for 'simulation' to the attacker.

Why are officials biased to defenders? It's because a free-kick to a defender has no consequence. If a 'controversial' free-kick or penalty is given to the attacking team, a goal (heaven forbid) might result and be 'blamed' on the referee for years to come. This thinking is wrong.

Pundits like to say 'if you give a penalty for that, you'd have to give six or seven per game.' Yes? Is that bad? A 3-3 draw instead of 0-0! Or, even better, less fouling and 2-2 from open play!

In future FIFA should tell referees to apply the laws of the game in equal measure for attackers and defenders.

Let's bring goals back into the game.

Oddities of the World Cup draw pots

And so we come to the World Cup draw, today in Cape Town at 5.45pm, UK time.

With France; without the Republic of Ireland. No Costa Rica, either, and no Croatia or Russia - the only countries in the top 20 FIFA rankings not to make it.

The eight groups will be drawn from four pots, but it is important to note that there is only ONE seeded pot. The other three pots are made up on a geographical basis.

The seeded pot however contains one "joker", and that is the host nation South Africa, who are actually the lowest rated country in FIFA's rankings, yet join the other top seven countries from October's rankings, simply because they are the hosts.

It means that fifth-ranked (in November) Portugal are not in the top seed list, and neither are seventh-ranked France (though that would have been a travesty given the way they qualified!). England have benefited from FIFA using the October rankings. The November rankings would have seen them miss out on a seeding.

Groups will be drawn from the four pots, but - as ever - it will not be completely straightforward as no other South American team can be drawn with Brazil or Argentina, and no other African team can be drawn with South Africa.

The pots are (with November rankings in brackets):

1: Spain(1), Brazil (2), Holland(3), Italy(4), Germany(6), Argentina(8), England(9), South Africa(86).
2: USA(14), Mexico(15), Australia(21), Honduras(38), Japan(43), South Korea(52), New Zealand(77), North Korea(84).
3: Cameroon(11), Ivory Coast(16), Chile(17), Uruguay(19), Nigeria(22), Algeria(28), Paraguay(30), Ghana(37).
4: Portugal(5), France(7), Greece(12), Switzerland(18), Serbia(20), Denmark(26), Slovenia(33), Slovakia(34).

The way FIFA fill their pots means we could end up with a 'Group of Death' containing: Spain, USA, Cameroon and Portugal (combined ranking of 31), and a 'Comatose Group' containing: South Africa, North Korea, Ghana and Slovakia (combined ranking of 241).

Do FIFA just pray things will work out all right? You watch something odd happen.

England will be praying the worst doesn't happen to them.

How will the FIFA EGM handle Henry?

Sepp Blatter has called an Emergency General Meeting of FIFA's executive committee for next Wednesday (2 December). It will be held in South Africa and precedes the World Cup final tournament draw on Friday 4 December.

Although they may discuss Henry's handball there is no chance of a replay. They have stated this already, and the replay route is fraught with danger. It is also unlikely that they will bring in video replays, though it may get discussed. The most likely outcome of any discussion of Henry's misdemeanour will be the introduction of two more assistant referees behind the goal line, as are being used in UEFA's Europa Cup this season.

It is also likely that FIFA will try to take the heat out of the situation by denying that the meeting is solely about the incident in the France v Republic of Ireland game. They will also be discussing the match fixing investigation revealed in Germany last week, but above all they're likely to say it's a meeting about seedings for the World Cup. We shall see.

Let's hope they can avoid controversy in the World Cup seedings, but the most outrageous seeding will be host South Africa (currently 85th in the World, and 31st of the 32 qualifiers) who will be in the top pot of seeds.