The Sun takes the paywall plunge

THE SUN newspaper took a momentous step yesterday by joining its Murdoch stablemates, the Times and the Sunday Times, and putting its online content behind a paywall.

Subscribers will have to pay £2 per week for access to Sun+, the website version of Britain's biggest selling paper.

But, while the stats have shown for years that the Sun has been a success off the news stands, it has begun its online revolution from a rather low base.

Recent figures put the pre-paywall Sun website readers on 1.8million unique browsers per day. This compares poorly to the market leader, the still-free Mail Online of the Daily Mail, which attracts an average of 8.1million visitors.

Meanwhile, the Guardian - with 4.8millions daily users - comes next, ahead of the Daily Telegraph, with 2.7million.

As direct tabloid rivals, though, it will be the increase in the Daily Mirror's online traffic which would have been of most concern to the Sun.

Even before the paywall was erected, the Mirror had made a march on the Sun - and, yesterday, it cleverly used the front page of its website to declare "the best things in life are free".

So what does the Sun have to offer to tempt subscribers?

Easily the biggest booty which has been publicised is the newspaper's £30m+ investment in Premier League highlights.

It is an apparently a good enough move that media commentator Steve Hewlett "can see [it] working" - but I remain a lot more sceptical.

For a start, the BBC's Match of the Day will show exactly the same goals a little later but on a free-to-air basis.

And, for anyone out on the town on a Saturday night or too hungover to watch the Sunday morning repeat, MotD will even be on iPlayer for the first time in this coming season.

As for the Sun's other potential unique selling points... Want breaking news? Then, look no further than the BBC or Sky websites.

Desiring a right-wing rant against immigrants or welfare 'scroungers'? Try the Mail Online, if you must. There, you will also find enough vacuous celeb gossip to preclude the need for the Sun.

Finally, charging for Page 3 tits - on the internet of all places - just sounds totally ludicrous.

Of course, the Sun - and its new editor David Dinsmore - could prove me wrong - and, indeed, the whole journalism industry remains optimistic that some sort of paywall scheme could work.

Already, though, some of the Sun's biggest-name retail advertisers, such as Tesco, Currys and Marks & Spencers, are holding fire on running activity on the Sun+ - at least until it can prove that it has sustained evidence that it is reaching its ambitious subscriber targets.

The Sun has responded by launching an ad campaign of its own, but the £10m spent there just adds to the spiralling costs which will need to be recouped by getting readers on board.

Estimates suggest the Sun will need to attract more than 250,000 subscribers to cover the loss of online advertising and make back its outlay on the digital Premier League football.

It will do well to get anywhere near that. The website of Rupert Murdoch's other daily News UK title, the Times, went behind a paywall in July 2010 and is ailing badly, reaching fewer readers now than the Independent and the London Evening Standard.

The crux of the matter seems to be that, unlike those of other major newspapers, the News UK websites do not give away any content for free.

By contrast, in March, the Telegraph began employing a metered paywall which allows a limit of 20 free articles before those wanting more are invited to take out a free trial subscription, and then a paid one, from a cost of £2 a week.

This allows casual consumers of the Telegraph, like myself, to pass by the website every now and then, with more ardent readers having to subscribe.

So far, the tactic has been pretty successful with no discernible downturn in traffic, and perhaps a metered paywall is the way forward for newspapers looking to make money from its online content.

All the while, the Sun - and the Times - are having to rely entirely on the loyalty and goodwill of their readers. Good luck to them with that.

Retired Cooke lances the boil

CYCLIST cheat Lance Armstrong choked back crocodile tears last night as he admitted for the first time that he used banned drugs and blood doping to win all seven of his Tour de France titles.

The 41-year-old Texan made the confession to television host Oprah Winfrey on her OWN network in a two-and-a-half-hour interview which was also streamed worldwide through her website.

"I view this situation as one big lie I repeated a lot of times. I made those decisions, they were my mistake and I'm here to say sorry," Armstrong said.

However, Armstrong also revealed that he had considered doping as simply part of the process required to win Le Tour, comparing it to having "air in our tyres or water in our bottles".

Moreover, when asked by Winfrey if he considered what he was doing was "wrong" or "cheating", Armstrong answered that he did not, adding: "The definition of a cheat is to gain an advantage on a rival or foe.

"I didn't view it that way. I viewed it as a level playing field. I didn't understand the magnitude of that. The important thing is that I'm beginning to understand it."

In fairness to Armstrong for a moment, it is easy to see why he was forced into thinking like that, given the context of the times.

He won his seven Tour de France titles consecutively between 1999 and 2005, and the first of those triumphs came just a year after the Festina affair when a huge haul of doping products was found in a car of the Festina cycling team.

The 1998 scandal had huge implications for Festina and its riders, team soigneur Willy Voet and doctor Eric Rijkaert were ejected from the race and arrested. Seven of the riders admitted doping, and they were suspended and fined.

Meanwhile, some of the other teams threatened to withdraw from the race, protesting the decision to treat the riders as criminals - but the move did little more than to cast suspicion upon themselves. Basically, it seemed like everyone was at it.

Ultimately, though, it was not just a level playing field which Armstrong had hoped to achieve. Indeed, the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) accused him and the US Postal Service team of operating "the most sophisticated, professional and successful doping programme that sport has ever seen".

But it was not difficult to see why Armstrong was willing to push the doping boundaries so hard. In 1996, he  had been diagnosed with testicular cancer, which had also spread to his brain and his lungs.

Following brain surgery and extensive chemotherapy, he was given the all-clear in February 1997, and the narrative of his life made his victories all the more extraordinary, cultivating an image of him winning brilliantly against all the odds.

Furthermore, Armstrong used his powerful positive message to set up the Lance Armstrong Foundation, which has raised $325m (£203m) through the sale of its yellow Livestrong bracelets.

That is all well and good outside of the sport - but, within it, the American had gained the reputation as a bully with an almost dictatorial cult of personality within his team.

And, while he denied his fellow team-mates were forced to comply with the doping programme, he did admit last night that the strength of his personality could have implied that.

He said: "Yes, I was a bully. I was a bully in the sense that I tried to control the narrative and if I didn't like what someone said I turned on them. We felt like we had our backs against the wall and I was a fighter."

Most relevantly, Armstrong continually strenuously denied using performance-enhancing drugs to anyone who dared suggested that he had, and even went as far as reversing his 2005 retirement decision to return to the sport between 2008 and 2011.

He backed up his denials with a crack team of lawyers who would come down hard on accusers in the courts, suing - among many others - the Sunday Times.

The newspaper paid £1m damages in its settlement outside of court but it has now counter-sued, and is just one of a whole slew of interested parties which Armstrong's lawyers will have to deal with.

Former team-mate Floyd Landis - who was stripped of his 2006 Tour de France title for doping - has filed a federal whistle-blower lawsuit accusing Armstrong of defrauding the US Postal Service, which paid more than £18.7m to sponsor the team Armstrong competed for.

And the US Department of Justice is reportedly considering whether to join the lawsuit against him

Finally, having lied under oath in 2005, Armstrong could also face criminal charges of perjury - and he surely cannot expect all of this to go away because of a cosy chat show apology to Oprah.

Certainly, USADA would have much preferred him to have made his admission under oath, and it may yet still force him to do so.

For, rather than the sponsors and the newspapers, Armstrong has done most damage to the sport itself and its competitors.

That much was clear earlier this week when British Olympic gold medallist Nicole Cooke announced her retirement.

Cooke bowed out with a parting shot, saying she had been "robbed" of more success by drugs cheats, and the Beijing Olympics road race champion clearly had little sympathy for Armstrong.

She said: "When Lance cries on Oprah later this week and she passes him the tissue, spare a thought for all those genuine people who walked away with no rewards - just shattered dreams. Each one of them is worth a thousand Lances."

Indeed, and it is fair to say that this dark episode in the sport of cycling will never be forgotten. After all, the official Tour de France record simply now states: 1999-2005 - no winner.

See also: Lance Armstrong & Oprah Winfrey - the transcript.

Galloway pulls off amazing Bradford West by-election win

Bradford West by-election result Respect GAIN from Labour

George Galloway Respect	18,341	55.9% (+52.8%)
Imran Hussein Labour	8,201	25.0% (-20.3%)
Jackie Whiteley Conservatives	2,746	8.4% (-22.7%)
Jeanette Sunderland Lib Dems	1,505	4.6% (-7.1%)
Sonja McNally UKIP	1,085	3.3% (+1.3%)
Dawud Islam Green	481	1.5% (-0.8%)
Neil Craig Democratic Nationalists	344	1.0% (-0.1%)
Howling Laud Hope Monster Raving Loony	111	0.3%

Total votes: 32,814 Turnout: 50.8% Majority: 10,140


GEORGE GALLOWAY scored a sensational triumph for Respect in the Bradford West by-election last night after thrashing Labour following a swing of almost 37%.

Mr Galloway won the seat with a thumping 56% of the vote, finishing well ahead of the Labour candidate Imran Hussein, who polled just 25%.

The Conservatives' Jackie Whiteley trailed in third after their vote collapsed to 8.4% - while their coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, lost another by-election deposit in fourth.

The main news, though, surrounded Mr Galloway's extraordinary victory in what was previously a safe Labour seat.

Mr Galloway, who was himself a Labour MP in Glasgow between 1987 and 2003, called it the "most sensational result in British by-election history".

Certainly, it must be said that the drama overnight in West Yorkshire ranked alongside other huge political shocks in Orpington, Crosby, and Glasgow East.

Labour had held Bradford West since 1974, except for a short period between 1981 and 1983 when then-MP Edward Lyons defected to the newly-formed Social Democratic Party.

Even in Labour's disastrous 1983 general election result under Michael Foot, the party still managed to regain the seat from the SDP.

And that fact puts into some context exactly how embarrassing this result actually is for Opposition leader Ed Miliband.

It was not meant to be this way, of course - and certainly not expected to be this way.

Labour was odds-on to win this by-election after pulling ahead into double-digit leads in the national polls following perhaps the roughest week yet for the coalition.

The government's troubles began last Wednesday when George Osborne announced in his third Budget that he was freezing age-related allowances while cutting the highest rate of tax from 50p to 45p.

Almost immediately, Mr Osborne's move became dubbed the "granny tax" and he could not even rely on support from traditionally Tory newspapers.

The Sun claimed that the Chancellor had "clobbered the masses of hard-grafting Brits in a budget that boosted super-earners" while the Daily Telegraph printed "granny tax" in its massive front-page headline.

Perhaps the worst news, though, came from the Daily Mail - "Osborne picks the pockets of pensioners" was its verdict - and it was no surprise to see Conservative support among the over-60s drop in polls after that barrage of headlines.

The perception that the Conservative party is only there to benefit the rich was given further credence when Prime Minister David Cameron then got caught up in a cash-for-access scandal.

Co-treasurer Peter Cruddas resigned from his post in the party after secret filming by the Sunday Times showed him offering access to the PM for a donation of £250,000 a year.

And, subsequently, Mr Cameron was forced into publishing the names of all the donors who had dined with him privately in Downing Street.

The PM soon got himself in more bother when another element of taxation in the Budget, the seemingly innocuous imposition of VAT on hot pasties, reared its ugly head.

Asked when he had last eaten a pasty himself, Mr Cameron recalled: "I think the last one I bought was from the West Cornwall Pasty Company.

"I seem to remember I was in Leeds station at the time and the choice was whether to have one of their small ones or large ones, and I have a feeling I opted for the large one and very good it was too."

The only problem with this anecdote was that the West Cornwall Pasty Company had shut its store in Leeds station... five years ago.

Finally, just to prove that bad thing do not necessarily come in just three doses, a Minister went distinctly off-message, sparking a mass fuel panic which is still an ongoing concern.

Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude probably thought he was being helpful when he suggested that motorists fill jerry cans with petrol and store them in the garage following the Unite union's vote among hauliers to strike. 

Instead, Mr Maude's words have had the inevitable effect of drivers bleeding service stations dry amid record prices, despite the fact that there was no sign of actual strike action on the horizon. 

Unite would have to give seven days' notice of any withdrawal of labour and the union has now confirmed it will continue with its negotiations over the Easter weekend. 

Nevertheless, the Daily Mail brilliantly summed up the situation with its headline this morning: "Pandemonium at the pumps".

All in all, then, a pretty terrible 10 days for the government. But, with a by-election defeat like this, Labour shows no signs of providing effective opposition under Mr Miliband.

Labourlist, a blog which is independent from the central party, wrote in its live report that the result was a "very, very bad one".

Meanwhile, a follower was rather more cutting in their comment below the line. Jon wrote: "You're up against one of the most calamitous governments of recent times in the longest recession since the Great Depression and you've literally been beaten by a man who likes dressing up as a cat."

For readers unsure of the cat reference, Jon was recalling Mr Galloway's infamous appearance on Celebrity Big Brother in 2006 while he was MP for Bethnal Green and Bow.

In one of the tasks, the Scot pretended to be a cat and licked milk from the cupped hands of fellow contestant, actress Rula Lenska.

Unsurprisingly, Mr Galloway's actions brought him much mockery from the wider public and there were even suggestions that, as a sitting MP, he had brought Parliament into disrepute.

It is a sign, then, of just how bad the options are from the three main parties that the people of Bradford have instead put their trust into the egotistical Respect candidate.

As the member for Bethnal Green and Bow, Mr Galloway had one of the worst attendance rates in the House of Commons, turning up for only one in 20 votes.

And, despite words to the contrary in his victory speech, it is hard to see him being in Bradford for the long run.

If he does cut his losses somewhere down the line, it would be another blow to a West Yorkshire city which is in dire need of some help.

Recently subject to the two-part Channel 4 documentary, Make Bradford British, the area for years has been held up as an example of the failure of different cultural groups to integrate.

And the city took another blow when a report by the Local Data Company claimed that it was the "riskiest city in the UK to invest in retailing" due to its high number of vacant units and charity shops.

Worse still, the public cannot even find respite in following the two main sports teams.

Bradford City FC are sixth-bottom in League Two, and only four points off relegation out of the Football League altogether, having previously played in the Premier League between 1999 and 2001.

Most recently, a mass brawl at the end of their home defeat to Crawley saw five players red-carded, including three from Bradford, with the subsequent FA charge almost sure to result in a substantial fine.

Meanwhile, Bradford Bulls, the rugby league team - again powerhouses at the turn of the millennium - revealed this week that they need £1m just to stay in business.

And so, in light of all of this, it can only be hoped that Mr Galloway is an effective MP and that he did not just win this election to bloody the noses of some former Labour colleagues.

For Mr Miliband, the current poll leads will mean very little this morning. Instead, the results of the May elections now become hugely significant for his chances of survival.

Murdoch rides to the Sun's rescue

RUPERT MURDOCH arrived in London yesterday to launch a new Sunday tabloid and reassure staff on the Sun of their jobs.

The Australian-born proprietor of News International was in Wapping to make his big announcement and meet disconcerted staff on the Sun.

Earlier this week, five senior journalists from the paper were arrested on suspicion of bribing police and public officials as part of Operation Elveden, the investigation by Scotland Yard into newspaper corruption.

Sun reporters have also become increasingly worried that an internal News Corp investigations unit, the management and standards committee (MSC), has handed over the names of confidential sources to the police.

And so, it was against an atmosphere described as "anxious and angry" that Mr Murdoch sent an email in an attempt to heal some wounds.

He wrote: "We will build on the Sun's proud heritage by launching the Sun on Sunday very soon... We're doing everything we can to assist those who are arrested.

"All suspensions are hereby lifted until or whether charged, and they are welcome to return to work."

The reaction of the staff in Wapping to the news was positive, though this was perhaps out of relief more than anything.

A News International journalist is even reported to have said: "This is a proper fightback. Even if there are other arrests, this is a 'fuck you, here we are, we are carrying on despite everything.'"

However, others were less convinced by Mr Murdoch's statement.

Another reporter said: "This changes nothing. [There is still] a huge amount of concern across all three titles about protection of sources.

"Everyone is pleased that the suspensions have been lifted, but this is the language of the MSC. It makes no difference."

Overall, though, there is no doubt that most of the staff on the Sun will have gained a much-needed morale boost from the arrival of Mr Murdoch.

If nothing else, the upcoming launch of the Sun on Sunday shows that he is still committed to the UK newspaper industry... for now.

Nevertheless, there remain doubts over whether the whole of the Murdoch empire, namely News Corporation, will sail the same course - especially once Rupert's son, James, gains more control.

James Murdoch has made little secret of the fact that he is no fan of the printed press and it was not a surprise that he did not accompany his father on this trip.

He considers the UK newspapers to have caused him more problems than they are worth and, as a pragmatist and money man, he also thinks of them as a dying business.

The Times and the Sunday Times are loss-making while the Sun threatens to be caught in a similar mire to the one which accounted for the News of the World last July.

Of course, it has since emerged that claims of News of the World journalists deleting the voice messages on Milly Dowler's mobile phone was, on the balance of the available evidence, probably untrue.

But the very act of illegally hacking the phone of a murdered young girl, and others, was understandably enough to turn the collective stomach of the general public.

If the Sun journalists are also found guilty in this new crisis, it appears that Mr Murdoch will have short shrift for anyone involved.

For, he also wrote: "We will obey the law. Illegal activity simply cannot and will not be tolerated at any of our publications."

That appears to give Mr Murdoch, or at least his son James, a get-out clause from his apparent advances to the UK newspaper industry.

Indeed, the current BBC political presenter and former Sunday Times editor, Andrew Neil, warned: "Essentially, [Mr Murdoch] is between a rock and a hard place and he is playing for time.

"This will last until the next 12 arrests of Sun journalists or until he is forced to come down on one side.

"I am confident that the side he will come down on will be News Corporation in America. That is a multi-billion dollar business and News International is just a multi-million dollar business."

So, while on the surface, it appears Mr Murdoch may have flown in to save the Sun, this could yet be a relatively short-term fling.

That is not to say that the Sun, the Times and the Sunday Times will go the same way as the News of the World.

But, if it does all go wrong - and if James Murdoch gains any sort of control - none of the newspapers would get anywhere near as much attention from News International as they are right now.

Murdoch empire starts to fall apart

THE PHONE-hacking scandal has moved onto a new level in the last two weeks with arrests, resignations, apologies and recriminations.

Since my last post 12 days ago, the 168-year-old News of the World officially closed on 7 July and Rupert Murdoch withdrew his bid for full control of BSkyB on 13 July.

On 15 July, 11 days after it was revealed Millie Dowler's phone had been hacked, Rebekah Brooks - the chief executive of News International - eventually fell on her sword.

Two days later, on Sunday, she was arrested by the Metropolitan Police on suspicion of phone-hacking and making illicit payments to police officers. She was released on bail until October.

Just hours on from that, the country's most senior police officer, Met Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson then resigned.

Stephenson had received criticism for hiring former News of the World executive editor Neil Wallis as an advisor and for using a luxury health spa owned by a company for which Wallis also worked.

But the Commissioner departed with a stinging criticism of his own in the direction of Prime Minister David Cameron for the PM's ill-judged appointment of former News of the World editor Andy Coulson as his director of communications.

It is worth noting here that Coulson had been arrested on 8 July for conspiring to intercept communications. On 14 July, Wallis was arrested under suspicion of committing the same offence.

Before Brooks' arrest on 17 July, News International used their own newspapers and others to print a full-page apology.

The apology took the form of a letter from Murdoch in which he wrote: "The News of the World was in the business of holding others to account. It failed when it came to itself.

"We are sorry for the serious wrongdoing which occurred. We are deeply sorry for the hurt suffered by individuals affected. We regret not acting faster to sort things out."

However, in the next line, Murdoch added: "I realise that simply apologising is not enough." Even the 80-year-old Australian media mogul appears to think he is a busted flush in Britain.

That so much was evident by spiking of the BSkyB bid, although Murdoch and News International took it upon themselves to give the government and Parliament perhaps one last run around.

First, Culture secretary Jeremy Hunt looked less than impressive in referring the bid to the Competition Commission shortly after Murdoch confirmed he was happy to do this.

And then Murdoch pre-empted a special debate in the House of Commons on the bid by withdrawing it before proceedings started anyway.

Nevertheless, the debate went ahead and the MPs acted as if a millstones had been removed from their necks and spoke against Murdoch and News International without fear of reprisal.

These were quite extraordinary moments with members on all sides of the House lining up to pour scorn on the man who has indirectly controlled British politics since the rise of Margaret Thatcher in 1979.

The British political system may remain far from perfect, to say the least, but it seems now to be free of the clutches of Murdoch at last.

Even former Prime Minister Gordon Brown was in the chamber for only the second time since his general election defeat last May.

And the former Labour leader used his rare appearance to lay into News International.

He accused NI of "law-breaking on an industrial scale" and claimed it had "descended from the gutter to the sewers".

Mr Cameron had pointed out earlier at Prime Minister's Questions that, despite there being questions over his relationship to Coulson, he had at least set up an independent inquiry which his predecessor Mr Brown had failed to do.

However, Mr Brown attempted to defend himself saying his moves to set up a judicial review were blocked by senior civil servants.

Meanwhile, his successor Ed Miliband has had his strongest few weeks since gaining the Labour leadership last September.

Mr Miliband was written off as a weak performer after mixed May election results.

But, in this scandal, he has been judged to have set the agenda, giving his personal poll ratings a much-needed boost to the heady heights of -28 'approval'. Mr Cameron remains ahead of Mr Miliband on -13, though.

And, of course, the Labour leader has not emerged entirely squeaky clean from the scandal himself after confirmation he had also attended events in Brooks' lair.

I guess the mere fact that Mr Miliband was even present as Leader of the Opposition just goes to show how deep Murdoch and the other top brass at News International had their claws into British politics.

Ah, Murdoch and Brooks - back to them, inevitably.

Inevitable because they will provide the next development of this fascinating story when they appear before a House of Commons Select Committee tomorrow.

There, we will see if Parliament really will show its teeth having been freed from the leash of the Murdoch empire.

World Cup 2018/2022: Corrupt old FIFA men chase the cash

ENGLAND failed in their bid to host the 2018 World Cup finals as FIFA sadly but inevitably lived up to its reputation for chasing the money.

As a result, Russia were selected as hosts for the 2018 tournament while Qatar won the 2022 bid. It will be the first time either country has hosted a World Cup.

The Russians won the 2018 process by a landslide in the second round of voting, picking up 13 of the 22 votes with the joint Spain-Portugal bid on seven and Netherlands-Belgium on two.

Incredibly, England had gone out in the first round, receiving only two votes with Russia on nine, Spain-Portugal on seven and Netherlands-Belgium on four.

In the 2022 decision, Qatar beat off competition from Australia, South Korea, Japan and United States after four rounds of voting.

England's failure even to make it past the first round of voting left the bid team openly critical about the decision to award two World Cups at the same time.

Chief executive Andy Anson said: "Running two World Cups together was clearly a mistake.

"It inevitably led to people with votes in 2018 doing deals with people involved in 2022."

Additionally, Mr Anson queried the validity of FIFA's technical inspections. "The people who got the best reviews went out earliest, while the people who get the toughest reviews seem to have won," he said.

Mr Anson is right, of course. While FIFA praised the England bid, stating that "all the needs and objectives of our visit were met", parts of the plans by Russia and Qatar were deemed as "high risk".

And yet they still won. The result caused Mr Anson to lament the use of tactical voting by the executive committee.

But we all know this corrupt secretive covent operates at a much baser level than tactical voting.

Just look at the way the Dutch government team released details of FIFA demands for visa waivers and tax exemptions on profits.

Money talks in the world of the FIFA top brass, and it was evident even in England's bid.

Why else, for instance, would England travel to Trinidad & Tobago at the end of a long season in 2007-08 to play an otherwise utterly pointless friendly?

It was hardly an ideal time to renew acquiantances after the teams' meeting at the 2006 World Cup.

Rather, it was clearly a sweetener for FIFA vice-president and Trinidad Football Federation boss Jack Warner.

Of course, Warner was the slimy character who sold 2006 World Cup tickets for a personal profit of at least $1 million.

FIFA has indicated that a fine to the value of the profiteering had been imposed but only $250,000 has been returned so far.

It was depressing to see England's bid team fawning like that over shady FIFA executives, knowing that this was the only way they could get close to winning.

And having done all the arse-kissing, and then produced a near-perfect technical bid, it must have been particularly galling to be dumped out at the first round.

The failure certainly appears to be a personal blow to Prime Minister David Cameron who was heavily involved in the latter stages if the process.

But, while it was painful to see the England bid team including Mr Cameron take FIFA's demands lying down, it is hard to say what more could have been done to improve the bid on a purely technical basis.

And so Labour calls for an independent inquiry simply smacks of crass opportunism.

At least the British press refused to sit completely idle while FIFA wallows in its dirty money and own self-importance.

The Sunday Times was first to strike, capturing footage of two executive members Amos Amadu and Reynald Temarii willing to part with their vote for thousands of pounds in return.

Both were suspended by FIFA - Amadu for three years and Temarii for one - but it is fair to say that the corruption runs deeper than that.

Then, this week, a highly-publicised episode of the BBC's Panorama about FIFA corruption was broadcast.

Despite a big build-up, the episode was not really worth the hype. It barely scratched the surface, largely raking over old ground regarding bribes from FIFA's former marketing company International Sports and Leisure (ISL) which collapsed in 2001.

It did not help that it was fronted by a presenter in Andrew Jennings with such a blatant bias against FIFA, having been banned by the organisation.

This is not the first time Panorama has been caught up too much in the cult of the presenter and Mr Jennings spent most of the time shouting pointlessly in the direction of FIFA executives from across a road in Switzerland.

However, what Mr Jennings did show was that it is possible to be implicated in a scandal like the ISL bribery case and yet still sit at FIFA's top table.

Cameroonian Issa Hayatou, Paraguayan Nicolas Leoz and Brazilian Ricardo Teixeira all voted today among a group of 22 old rich men deciding the fate of the worldwide football audience.

And it must be said that the FIFA executive committee is hardly representative of their audience.

The average age of the all-male committee is 63. The youngest member on the board is 51-year-old Russian Vitaly Mutko, the oldest is Leoz at 82.

Nine of the men are 65 or over including 74-year-old president Sepp Blatter and vice-president Warner, who is 67.

In a depressing way, it seems apt that an organisation as out-of-touch as FIFA has given the World Cup to Russia the day after Wikileaks revealed US diplomatic cables branded Russia a virtual "mafia state".

And in a more unnerving twist, it would seem that FIFA is comfortable with their decision to give the World Cup to a country where anti-government journalists are beaten up on a regular basis, and sometimes even murdered.

Certainly, it comes as no surprise to find that Russia is ranked down at 140 on the press freedom index, actually an improvement on their 159th place in 2009.

Reporters Without Borders which compiles the ranking attributed Russia's 'improvement' to the fact that "there have recently not been any high-profile murders of journalists or human rights defenders in our country".

But its annual report also states: "The system remains as tightly controlled as ever, and impunity reigns unchallenged in cases of violence against journalists."

This is particularly interesting in light of the fact that England's chances of a successful bid were clearly harmed by press intrusion into FIFA affairs.

Effectively, one of the most corrupt organisations in the world has given one World Cup to one of the most corrupt countries in the world and another to an oil-rich emirate in the Middle East.

Sounds about right, really.


HOW THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE VOTED: Round-by-round
*FIFA World Cup 2018 vote
Round one: Russia 9, Spain-Portugal 7, Netherlands-Belgium 4, England 2 - England eliminated
Round two: Russia 13, Spain-Portugal 7, Netherlands-Belgium 2 - Russia won an absolute majority

*FIFA World Cup 2022 vote
Round one: Qatar 11, South Korea 4, Japan 3, United States 3, Australia 1 - Australia eliminated
Round two: Qatar 10, South Korea 5, United States 5, Japan 2 - Japan eliminated
Round three: Qatar 11, United States 6, South Korea 5 - South Korea eliminated
Round four: Qatar 14, United States 8 - Qatar won an absolute majority