FIFA looks to turn a fresh leaf under Infantino

FIFA PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 2016	Round 1	Round 2
(Q) Gianni Infantino (SUI/ITA)	88	115
Sheikh Salman bin Ebrahim al-Khalifa (BHR)	85	88
Prince Ali bin al-Hussein (JOR)	27	4
Jérôme Champagne (FRA)	7	-
Tokyo Sexwale (RSA)	w/d	-
TOTAL VOTES	207	207

GIANNI INFANTINO became the most powerful man in world football yesterday after winning the race to elect a new FIFA President in the second round in Zurich.

A Swiss-Italian lawyer by trade, Mr Infantino took a narrow lead over his main rival Sheikh Salman bin Ebrahim al-Khalifa of Bahrain in the first round.

And the former UEFA general secretary then hoovered up votes which had originally gone to Prince Ali bin al-Hussein of Jordan for a decisive victory.

In the grand scheme of things, Mr Infantino's rise to the top of FIFA actually comes as quite a surprise.

He was only backed by his own confederation UEFA after previous candidate Michel Platini was suspended by the FIFA Ethics Committee from all football-related activity in December alongside Sepp Blatter. Blatter, of course, had only just won a fifth successive term as president last May - before resigning four days later following the FBI-backed dawn arrests of several FIFA officials by the Swiss authorities. At first, Blatter avoided being caught in the net himself - but he was then found guilty of making a £1.3m "disloyal payment" to Platini who was also implicated in the deal. In a bizarre twist of fate, Mr Infantino's hometown of Brig is less than six miles away from Visp, from where Blatter hails. But, having been elected on his own merits, it feels only fair to judge him on his own words and actions. On his election, Mr Infantino said: "I want to work with all of you together in order to restore and rebuild a new era of FIFA where we can again put football at the centre of the stage. "FIFA has gone through sad times, moments of crisis, but those times are over. We need to implement the reform and implement good governance and transparency. We also need to have respect. "We're going to win back this respect through hard work, commitment and we're going to make sure we can finally focus on this wonderful game." Seemingly reasonable words from a seemingly reasonable guy - and Mr Infantino, in fairness, was always a far less divisive candidate than his closest rival, Sheikh Salman, who faced a slew of questions over human rights abuses in his own country. The 45-year-old will also surely be helped by several key reforms which were approved in this Extraordinary Congress including a limit to three terms in office for a president. A new council will replace the current executive committee, featuring a female representative from each confederation, and there will be greater transparency about the salaries of FIFA members. But the proof, eventually, will be in the pudding. Indeed, the reputation of FIFA is deservedly so low that it is only natural this latest turn of events has naturally attracted a cynical perspective from some writers. Paul Hayward, in his column for the Telegraph, even argues that welcoming Mr Infantino into the top job "requires ignorance, forgetfulness and hypocrisy". However, a more balanced assessment is made by David Conn in the Guardian. Even then, though, Conn's support for Mr Infantino stems from the fact that he was the best of a poor slate of candidates and that he managed to beat Sheikh Salman. Ultimately, it will be the big calls on which Mr Infantino will be judged. At this late stage, with qualifiers in some confederations having already begun, the 2018 World Cup is unlikely to be moved away from Russia. Mr Infantino must simply therefore hope that the event passes without a major racist or homophobic incident - or too much political interference from Vladimir Putin. However, big questions remain over Qatar 2022 - and then, despite the structural reforms, there are major doubts whether the toxic atmosphere of bribery and secrecy can really be stamped out. Action speaks louder than words, Mr Infantino - and now is the time for action.

Another Blatter coronation

FIFA PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Two-thirds majority (139 votes) required in first round of voting. Simple majority required (105 votes) required in the second round of voting.

Round	1	2
Sepp Blatter (SUI)	133	-
Prince Ali bin Hussein (JOR)	73	withdrew

BELEAGUERED FIFA president Sepp Blatter defied widespread condemnation and corruption allegations to secure a fifth successive term at the top of world football.

Blatter took 133 of the available 209 votes in the first round of voting in the election at the 65th FIFA Congress in Zurich. His sole opponent, Prince Ali bin Hussein of Jordan, received 73 while three members abstained.

Technically, by the rules, Blatter's first round total was not actually enough for him to win outright as a two-thirds majority (139) was required.

But, on hearing of his 60-vote deficit - and with no third party from which to attract votes - Prince Ali sensibly prevented a completely pointless second vote by officially withdrawing.

Blatter was therefore the winner after one round by default - and, at least in this case, the ridiculous farce had not been extended.

Of course, the Swiss - while seemingly acknowledging his organisation was facing some difficulties - somehow considered the result to be a vindication of his presidency.

He said: "I thank you. You have accepted me for the next 4 years. I will be in command of this boat of FIFA. We will bring it back of shore."

It is a metaphor he has used before. At his last election in 2011, he said: "Our ship is in troubled waters and I am the captain weathering the storm. This is a difficult period for FIFA and I admit that readily.

"Not only is the pyramid shaking but our ship has drawn some water."

But, at that election too, the now 79-year-old Swiss had promised that his fourth term would be his last.

Nevertheless, the u-turn over the length of Blatter's reign is probably one of the least of the alleged crimes committed by FIFA members following a frankly extraordinary week.

On Wednesday, US prosecutors, backed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), indicted 14 FIFA officials and associates, with seven arrested in a dawn raid at their upmarket hotel in Zurich.

They are accused of bribery, racketeering and money-laundering involving tens of millions of dollars since 1991.

Meanwhile, Swiss authorities have launched a separate criminal investigation into the awarding of the 2018 and 2022 World Cup tournaments to Russia and Qatar.

Instead of action only being taken by legal representatives, though, it is now surely also time for people inside football to stand up and defend themselves.

Incredible statistics show 1,200 migrant workers have already died building Qatar's World Cup stadia - there are still provisionally seven years ago. Quite simply, enough is enough.

Undoubtedly, the greatest hope lies with UEFA - ignoring the fact that, in the past, it has hardly been a bastion of good governance either.

Nevertheless, a European boycott of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups now looks as if it is a real possibility - and, for the good of football, it actually needs to happen.

Other major and developing countries - Argentina, perhaps Brazil, and certainly United States and Australia - could join the likes of Germany, Italy, France and England in a competitive 'rebel' tournament.

After all, only then will the most important players in this FIFA farrago - the huge corporate sponsors - actually sit up and take notice.

Ultimately then the aim would be to have a new world governing body still including countries from Africa and Asia.

Elitist isolationism - while a valid UEFA-led tactic in the short-term to put pressure on FIFA - will simply end up breeding yet more resentment in the developing football world.

The argument works the other way too - as, eventually, the lack of African and Asian players involved would make football a duller sport overall.

Nevertheless, in any new arrangement, the weight of votes in the presidential election would need to be changed and directly connected to an improved ranking system.

This would bring to an end the crazy current situation in which dozens of African and Asian countries which have never got close to qualifying for the World Cup finals can out-vote those with the strongest football traditions.

Ideally, it would also then encourage the developing nations to invest their money in the right areas.

For instance, if Qatar or any other footballing backwaters wanted to have more influence in football's new world order, they would need to improve their training facilities and infrastructure.

This would logically produce a better and more consistent team - and up the rankings they would surely go thus earning more influence in an entirely valid way.

Perhaps all that sounds like a pipe-dream - but one thing is for sure: the status quo cannot continue.

Blatter, elected unopposed in 2007 and 2011, still barely faced a challenge this time. One contender, former Portugal star Luis Figo summed up the situation when pulling out of the race earlier this week.

Figo said: "This process is anything but an election. This process is a plebiscite for the delivery of absolute power to one man - something I refuse to go along with."

And, in the end, it was indeed as easy as ABC. This was Another Blatter Coronation.

At the same time, it seems thankfully as if the endgame is approaching. For now, though, it remains unclear whether Blatter - and FIFA - will be brought down by the FBI, by a UEFA-led boycott, or by a combination of the two.

Regardless, it would be simply incredible if he was still in his post by the end of this term. Something must and will happen.

FIFA farce set to run and run

FIFA thought it was over. The summary of its report into the bids for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups had cleared the eventual winners Russia and Qatar of any wrongdoing.

"Move along, nothing to see here" seemed to be the official line coming from its headquarters in Zurich.

But the world governing body had not anticipated Michael Garcia, the American lawyer who had conducted the two-year inquiry, distancing himself from the summary, written by German judge Hans-Joachim Eckert.

Indeed, Mr Garcia says the report "contains numerous materially incomplete and erroneous representations" of his own work and that he will now appeal to FIFA itself.

No doubt Sepp Blatter and his cronies will find a way to whitewash that process and it would be better at this stage if Mr Garcia would forget about due process and just publish his own findings in full.

For only then might we get anywhere nearer to the truth in this matter.

Incredibly, albeit rather predictably, the English Football Association is the only organisation to have been accused of flouting the bidding rules as it stands.

Now, of course, it would be naive to think that the FA was not perhaps in any way culpable even if it has vehemently denied the charge.

Why else, after all, would England play an end-of-season friendly against Trinidad & Tobago if it was not to butter up former FIFA vice-president Jack Warner?

Nevertheless, today's report seemed content to sweep greater wrongdoings under the carpet.

As England's FA chairman Greg Dyke said: “Those who co-operated the most seemed to be the ones that gave them the information by which they were then criticised, like the FA.

"Others, who didn’t co-operate, didn’t get criticised at all. Well, there’s a surprise.”

For a start, the investigation into the 2018 bid winners Russia cannot have been too detailed given that the report states its committee had lost its evidence after returning rented computers which were subsequently destroyed.

Meanwhile, in terms of the 2022 decision, it notes that illegal payments were made by Qatari official Mohamed Bin Hammam - but that these were somehow not linked to country’s World Cup bid.

Bin Hammam, it may be recalled, was the only man willing to stand against Blatter in his last election in 2011, only for allegations to cause him to step down.

Instead, Blatter was re-elected unopposed for a fourth term, and the Swiss has since announced he intends to stand yet again next year.

Yes, at the end of the day, FIFA is his plaything and, despite having turned 78 in March, it seems unlikely he will relinquish control any time soon.

That means Russian supremo Vladimir Putin will get another major propaganda event in 2018, and it also means 2022 going ahead in Qatar - despite the fact that no one can agree which part of the year to put it.

But, most shamefully of all, the latest reports from Doha confirm the Qatar World Cup is effectively being built on the back of the efforts of slave labour.

Particularly implicated was Kim Jong-un's North Korean government which has sent workers to the Gulf, only for the coffers in Pyongyang to keep the majority of the money they earn.

Of course, by keeping the World Cup in Qatar, FIFA does more than simply turn a blind eye to such matters.

And yet, despite Mr Garcia breaking ranks today, it is difficult to see anything really changing unless FIFA loses all of its sponsors and the support of the majority of associations.

That is unlikely to happen as there is simply too much money in it for them - and, when it comes to anything connected with FIFA, self-interest always overrules principles.

FIFA were wrong in poppy wrangle

FIFA took their time but eventually performed a U-turn to allow England players to wear poppies on their black armbands during the friendly with Spain at Wembley on Saturday.

But the climbdown only came after Duke of Cambridge Prince William and Prime Minister David Cameron had written to FIFA president Sepp Blatter.

Earlier Mr Cameron had branded the original decision of an outright ban on poppies as "outrageous", and he added: "The idea that wearing a poppy to remember those who have given their lives for our freedom is a political act is absurd.

"Wearing a poppy is an act of huge respect and national pride."

FIFA had stated, by way of explanation, that the ban on poppies had to be enforced as "such initiatives would open the door to similar initiatives from all over the world, jeopardising the neutrality of football".

However, Blatter's organisation has failed to realise that, despite the intervention of Mr Cameron, the poppy itself is not a political or religious symbol at all. It simply serves to commemorate those who sacrificed their lives in war for their country.

Jon Snow, the Channel 4 news presenter, famously refuses to wear a poppy (or indeed any symbol which may represent his views) on screen, condemning what he calls "poppy fascism".

Mr Snow added: "In the end, there really must be more important things in life than whether a news presenter wears symbols on his lapels."

But that is not the issue here, either, as the England players were more than happy to have a poppy embroidered on their shirt.

That was certainly the case for Arsenal youngster Jack Wilshere who tweeted: "My great-grandad fought for this country in WW2 and I'm sure a lot of people's grandparents did.

"[The] England team should wear poppies on Saturday. It's the nation's tradition and it would be disrespectful not to."

Indeed, the only extremism seemed to come from FIFA, the organisation with a president dictator who has famously been reelected unopposed on the last two occasions.

Meanwhile, the Royal British Legion expressed their disappointment at the original stance. George Batt, the general secretary of the Normandy Veterans' Associated, described the decision as "disgraceful".

Mr Batt added: "I'm lost for words. I can't see any harm in wearing a poppy. It's so sad.You surely don't need rules and regulations in Fifa like this?"

It is little wonder the soldiers were bemused and upset. They know that 90 minutes of exposure from England's top footballers would do much to help a good cause which celebrated its 90th birthday this year.

Of course, the row brought the usual measured response from the right-wing press and, even in supporting the cause, the Daily Mail slipped up.

First, the newspaper inexplicably pinned the blame for the poppy ban on the Germans before making a U-turn of its own.

But it is FIFA's change of heart which is more telling as the organisation gradually realised it was on the wrong side of the argument once again.

Indeed, as row escalated, the governing body went from banning poppies altogether to allowing black armbands to allowing poppies on the black armbands.

Nevertheless, the poppies will still not be on the shirts and so it could be argued that Blatter and co have still not nearly gone far enough.

Blatter gets four more years

SEPP BLATTER will remain president of football governing body FIFA after he was re-elected unopposed today amid widespread allegations of corruption in the organisation.

Blatter received 186 of the 203 votes (91.6%) at the 61st FIFA Congress in Zurich after the failure of a late joint attempt by the Football Association and Scottish Football Association to have the election postponed.

As promised, the FA abstained and the English were joined by the Scots but, disappointingly, support from elsewhere was largely not forthcoming. Disappointing but hardly unexpected.

It seems that turkeys will vote for Christmas before the majority of the FIFA Congress members will vote to change an organisation which seems rotten to the core.

Make no question about it, though - the boat has been rocked.

A delusional Blatter had denied there was nothing to investigate nor any sort of crisis at FIFA when speaking to journalists at a press conference yesterday.

But, later, in his opening speech to the Congress, he admitted: "Our ship is in troubled waters and I am the captain weathering the storm. This is a difficult period for FIFA and I admit that readily.

"Not only is the pyramid shaking but our ship has drawn some water,"

However, the problem is that based upon overnight events, FIFA is going completely the wrong way about sorting out their mess.

For, just last night, interim Concacaf president Lisle Austin made a botched attempt to sack Concacaf general secretary Chuck Blazer, the man who accused Jack Warner and former presidential candidate Mohamed Bin Hammam of bribery.

The executive committee of Concacaf, the North American federation, ruled that the move by Austin, who is in his position at the federation in place of Warner, was "unauthorised".

And so, as it stands, Mr Blazer has retained his job... but then so has Blatter, for a fourth term, as well.

Over the past 13 years, the 75-year-old Swiss has overseen numerous crises from his offices in Zurich.

They include the collapse of FIFA's marketing partner International Sport and Leisure (ISL) in 2001 amid accusations that the company paid £66m of bribes to football's governing body.

Then there were the unwelcome comments about women's football in 2004 and the refusal to consider the introduction of goal-line technology in the run-up to World Cup 2010.

Now there is the latest round of accusations about the bribing of FIFA officials in the lead up to the votes on the World Cups in 2018 and 2022 - first by former FA chairman Lord Triesman and now by Mr Blazer.

Blatter has survived before against the odds and his latest trick was to pour whitewash over the allegations made by Lord Triesman.

On Sunday, the accused quartet - Warner, Nicolas Leoz, Ricardo Teixeira and Worawi Makudi - were all exonerated of any wrongdoing.

However, FIFA's investigation of itself was hardly the independent inquiry of these men that remains much needed.

Indeed, the fact that Blatter's only previous opponent for this election, Bin Hammam, is one of the suspended members - and that Blatter ended up being re-elected unopposed for a second time in a row - demonstrates clearly how deep FIFA is in the mire.

At least one positive thing to emerge from this whole mess is the discovery by the FA of a backbone.

It was not always thus. When there was still a chance of their 2018 bid succeeding, bid chief executive Andy Anson attacked the BBC for being "unpatriotic" after Panorama analysed FIFA bribes.

Sadly, Mr Anson did not seem to appreciate that, while the BBC is indeed this country's main public service broadcaster, it is not there to turn a blind eye to stories of legitimate journalistic value simply because they do not fit an accepted narrative.

Even now, the FA faces criticism of having acted too late and making only a token gesture to delay the presidential vote.

In fairness to current FA chairman David Bernstein, though, I would guess even he did not expect this extraordinary situation to unravel so quickly.

But, despite losing the battle to keep Blatter out of power in the auditorium today, the FA cannot resign itself to sitting back idly as it has done before.

Surely the time has come to attempt a break-away from the clutches of an organisation which has for a long time clearly been a busted flush.

It will not be easy as Blatter retains the support of the vast majority of smaller countries in FIFA including Northern Ireland and Wales.

They are pleased with him for the redistribution of funds, regardless of whether or not this is dirty money.

However, if the oldest associations in football in England and Scotland can attract some other big hitters - and, perhaps most importantly for sponsor reasons, the United States - then it could work.

Isolationism is rarely the answer to problems such as this but it is fair to say that FIFA seems blind to its issues and nothing more can be done internally.

The big associations should not be scared of taking on FIFA by resigning their positions. At the moment, their votes hold no more weight than those of San Marino or Tonga.

But, by stepping away from FIFA, they would fast gain the support of the already-worried sponsors such as Adidas, Coca-Cola and Emirates.

Ultimately, given Blatter's dictatorial power at FIFA, it is a faint hope - but it is the only one which is worth holding on to, for now.