The news that Qatar has won the right to host the 2022 FIFA World Cup appears to have been met with widespread cynicism and criticism by The West; from the allegations of bribery and corruption to concerns over the tiny Arab state’s strict laws, extreme heat, and lack of football heritage. Whilst there are clear concerns that need to be addressed, this is a rather simplistic view of what should in fact be a genuinely intriguing occasion.

The successful bid has been supported and fronted by some of football’s biggest names, so it should come as no surprise that they have emerged victorious. Zinedine Zidane has featured in a television advert for Qatar 2022, which has been shown regularly all over the world. Some of the other ambassadors for the Qatari bid include Pep Guardiola, Ronald De Boer and Sami Al-Jaber, whilst many other famous faces have appeared in Doha recently to show their support – Sir Alex Ferguson, for example. Regardless of their motives, these superstars have helped introduce a much-needed sense of glamour and accessibility to Qatar, and have helped transform the bid into a far more realistic proposition. Recent friendly matches have demonstrated that they’re already more than capable of putting on an impressive show. Brazil have played matches against England and Argentina over the last year, and the Khalifa International Stadium has been a more than worthy venue for these high profile games, with its luxurious executive seating areas and a huge arch over the eastern section of the ground, which can be used as a platform to launch fireworks from.

Qatar in general has undergone significant social changes in recent years, meaning many visitors’ concerns can largely be put to rest. Firstly, and perhaps most importantly for the typical football supporter, Qatar is not an alcohol-free state. Whilst it is true that drunken behaviour in public can get you into a spot of bother, it is perfectly legal to consume alcohol in private and at your hotel bar. There will also be specifically-created fan zones in the various regions of Qatar during the tournament, in which alcohol can both be bought and consumed freely. This one action is a clear example of the compromises the government are willing to make for the World Cup, and they don’t stop there. Israel, should they qualify, will be granted entry, as will members of the Jewish faith in general. The dress code has become far more relaxed in recent years, regardless of the World Cup. For example, it is perfectly acceptable to wear short sleeves and shorts now, whilst women will be under absolutely no pressure to wear burqas or any other form of head-dress. In the relative privacy of hotel swimming pools, swimwear is also perfectly acceptable. Kissing in public should not be a problem, and homosexuals will not be arrested on site. Rest assured, the Qataris will be desperate to avoid controversy whilst it is attracting the attention of the whole world.

The heat will clearly provide a significant stumbling block, but it is not a problem that has been ignored. Temperatures are likely to reach the mid-high 40s in June and July, but the bid team claim they will have technology available to ensure temperatures inside the stadiums will never exceed 26 degrees Celsius. This technology is supposedly entirely green, as solar panels will be used to convert sunrays into the electricity they require to cool the stadiums. Any excess energy created will be transported back to the power grid for future use. The explanation of the technology, itself, may not excite you hugely, but the actual output will come as a tremendous relief to all concerned. Without it, the World Cup almost certainly wouldn’t be heading to Qatar. A criticism of several world cups in the past has been that the heat has all but ruined many of the matches, but ironically, it seems that one of the hottest ever host nations will provide some of the most comfortable playing conditions.

I will allow you to look at the planned stadiums in the video (skip to 3.25 to avoid the generic tourism imagery) at the top for yourselves rather than tediously describe every last detail, but they undoubtedly look impressive, and many of them will be extremely relevant to the region too with the references to the dhow boats and the seashell right beside the Arabian Gulf. This is a key advantage of hosting the tournament in a country like Qatar – the architects effectively have a blank slate to work with, which in many ways is more exciting and can lead to more diverse opportunities than world cups in more established football-playing nations.

There is no great football history or heritage in Qatar – in fact, the most their football team has ever achieved is two Gulf Cup wins on home soil. This is a source of attraction for FIFA though, as they are intent on bringing the World Cup to new regions and cultures in order to create a permanent legacy all over the globe, and Qatar 2022 will surely be a World Cup like absolutely no other before it.

The concern at the news of Qatar hosting the world cup is not at all surprising, but that is exactly why they have already started to work so hard towards creating a positive image of the oil and gas-rich state. For several years now, they have been attracting big names in sport; through the domestic football league, motorsport and tennis. Now they have the icing on the cake, having finally secured the biggest competition in sport. There will, of course, be challenges; they will have to find a way to deal with legions of drunk, rowdy half naked football supporters, and they will have to come up with ways to ensure the comfort of fans in the heat outside of the stadiums. Just like the U.A.E. though, Qatar is a hugely ambitious state and simply will not allow itself to deliver a poor world cup.

Now we just have to wait for 11 and a half years to see it…

As I mentioned previously, FIFA noted in its bid evaluation report that should  the United States 2022 win the right to host the World Cup, “FIFA’s legal risk appears to be medium.”  The bids from Japan and Holland/Belgium were also marked as medium risk.  All three bids were given a rider after this wrist-slap and were told that the “experience in supporting the hosting and staging of major sports events” that the four nations all have is a boon.

Basically, this is the FIFA equivalent of a teacher saying to students, “finish your work by the time I get back or else.”  In football terms, FIFA said, “we’re not ruling you out of the bid because of these legal issues, but get it together.”

So what is this legal power that FIFA wants  from the USA, Japan and Belgium/Holland?

Predominantly, FIFA wants the country to implement legal guarantees that protect the economic side of the World Cup.  The most famous and well publicized example of this would be the 36 Dutch women who wore orange dresses with the name of a beer company to a erm, Oranje match against Denmark.  There women were thrown out of the match and arrested.

What law did they break?  Apparently it was part of the “2010 Fifa World Cup South Africa Special Measures Act” which, among other things, criminalizes commercial enterprise (if wearing predominantly orange dresses with minor logos that no one would have noticed had FIFA not had the dress-wearers arrested) in “an exclusion zone” or in “a designated area.”

These are some of the legal guarantees FIFA requires of host nations, but the economic side is not the only area that FIFA wants secure.  And though this is one of the most obvious sentences written about the World Cup, FIFA wants to protect its official World Cup sponsors so that the sponsors’ values remain ultra-high.  If Budweiser sees that the Dutch beer company Bavaria gets TV time for the low price of 36 tickets to a match, goes the logic, their sponsorship might not be so great when they renegotiate their partnership for 2018 and beyond (Anheuser-Busch is already locked into the 2014 World Cup).  I’m not sure I believe this, given that the World Cup is probably the most desirable sponsor partner in the world for a beer company, but still, FIFA must act to look like it cares.

Perhaps even more strangely, FIFA set up courts in South Africa specifically to deal with crimes related to the World Cup (crimes taking place in “exclusion zones” or crimes against FIFA property and employees, perhaps).

While the surreal arrest of the Dutch women may seem funny, they were essentially arrested for contravening a law that most people probably didn’t know was a full blown crime and not just some lightweight civic offense, if they knew it was anything at all.

I was in South Africa for several months prior to the World Cup, so the arrest of the Dutch women still seemed excessive but was less surprising given the general word of mouth gossip that floated around the country in the first half of 2010.  And while some of the stories were surely not true, many people claimed public offices where government services could be had (such as the post office or a notary) were taken over by FIFA for their official offices.  I’m not sure if this happened, and even if it did, it doesn’t strike me as extreme as setting up FIFA courts.

But, the general feeling was that FIFA had the entire government under its thumb and it could do seemingly anything to ensure a smooth World Cup.  This feeling reached a crisis point when FIFA began threatening South African journalists with a form of effective banning (revoking of credentials) should they be critical of the manner in which the World Cup was being run.

South Africa has one of the most recent constitutions on the planet and as such, broadly supports freedom of the press and free expression.  With such threats against FIFA-unfriendly journalists, people began to suggest that FIFA itself was contravening the South African constitution.

Ultimately  these issues were mostly forgotten when the football began.  It is unlikely that a nation will risk the prestige and economic benefit that hosting the World Cup brings by refusing to cooperate with FIFA.  But the question remains: for the build up to and duration of the tournament, does FIFA make unreasonable demands on host nations?  Should they be able alter the laws of a country so they can be more efficient in the protection of their sponsors?

My feeling is that FIFA goes too far.  While they no doubt have the right to set up commercial zones where only certain brands are sold, having “FIFA courts” and threatening to remove credentials from members of the press should not fall within FIFA’s authority.

Major sports events can be hugely profitable.  It’s not just FIFA who demand such legal guarantees; it occurs at events like the Olympics as well.  FIFA knows this and knows that most countries who seek to host the World Cup do not have a problem with event-specific laws, and so the practice will likely continue for World Cups in the foreseeable future.

The Three Lions are landing back on their home turf today and before they even deplane, the English media will be on them like hounds. Their defeated faces will be splashed across the tabloids with horribly corny puns similar to the one shown in Nike’s ‘Write the Future Ad’.

And the whole country is going to be grilling Capello, the players, FIFA, the location, and even the way the EPL is run. Right now, as I type this, England’s (least) favourite Italian is being questioned with more intensity than the Spanish Inquisition.  No surprise. England is going to look for a single scapegoat to bear their string of poor performances and German slaughter. We saw hints of this when Capello swiftly shut down John Terry’s all-team meeting and the English media immediately pounced on Terry in attempts of making him a backup scapegoat—just in case the English lost.

England, I ask you, why can there only be one reason why you failed to revive 1966? Because, really, aren’t a combination of all of the above named factors a reason why you lost?

Capello’s not perfect, that’s a fact. But no one is. Not even Maradona. Sure, he spent too much time trying to find the right starting XI, made some tactical errors, refused to pull out underperforming superstars like Rooney and barely acknowledged the team’s request for Joe Cole to play. But that’s his style. Capello does things his way and while critics may say that he should’ve adopted the less-harsh English method, it probably would have lead to a quicker downfall and probably not a qualifier.

The players are always the hardest and the easiest to blame. The so-called Golden Generation of footballers were supposed to pave the way to a victory that only dreams could concoct. But everybody underperformed. Nobody seemed to have the heart to play. Nobody seemed to want it after Robert Green’s howler. The whole team scored a total of 3 goals. Lampard had arguably the best game of any of the players, but even then, his semi-lackluster performance didn’t debut until the threat of elimination was made very real. Speaking of…

USA fans will forever lament the two discounted goals, but they won’t moan about it nearly as much as England will Lampard’s. The call to FIFA for the inclusion of instant replay and better refereeing will be louder from the British Isles than anywhere else. (Except maybe a jilted Mexico). And with FIFA staying mum on their ref’s performances, it’s not going to make matters any better. To be fair, this is probably England’s best argument for their loss, as an equaliser would have drastically altered the momentum of the second half and prevented such a blitzkrieg.

The environment is always one of the first to be blamed for poor performances: altitude change, a wintertime World Cup, poor pitch conditions, vuvuzelas, etc. I’m surprised the team hasn’t lashed out at the Jabulani ball yet…oh, wait.

The most outrageous argument that has come up thus far has been against the number of foreign players that are allowed to play in the EPL. English players are apparently not getting enough playing time and feel suffocated by the number of foreigners in the clubs. Okay.

When it comes down to it, England have only themselves to blame. Maybe Capello’s no WAGs rule had something to do with it…

Love them or hate them, the Vuvuzelas are here to stay in South Africa. At least that’s the latest stance from FIFA. However, that doesn’t help the soccer fans around the world who are going nuts because of the droning sound of the vuvuzelas that are ruining the TV viewing experience.

On the other hand, many soccer fans (and many South Africans) feel that the vuvuzelas should stay because they’re a part of the culture.

Overseas, the BBC is thinking about creating a separate audio channel where TV viewers can choose a “vuvuzela-free” audio commentary.

What do you think? Vote in the poll below and share your feedback in the comments section.

As the first weekend of World Cup action draws to a close, the tournament has proven itself to be thoroughly captivating.  While the South African, USA and Ghana teams may have created the most unforeseen results with the ball at their feet, there have been some tremendously positive surprises apart from the players and teams.  Chief among them are-

A simply fabulous job by ESPN and ABC.  Four years ago there was visible anger among the US soccer community at the way ESPN and ABC produced their World Cup coverage – poor announcers, lousy in-studio talent and a purely amateurish approach to covering the world’s greatest sporting event.  This year’s coverage is a sea-change.  The in-studio talent has been made up of some of the most famous and insightful commentators on the soccer scene.  Among the best have been Ruud Gullit, Jurgen Klinsman, the eminently likable Steve McManaman and the surprisingly insightful Roberto Martinez.  Combined with Alexi Lalas and Bob Ley, they have been outstanding.  Furthermore, the play-by-play teams have been terrifically engaging, and in the US-England game the Martin Tyler and John Harkes partnership went surprisingly well.   The camera angles and graphic analysis has been great, and the entire production has walked that fine line of explaining the game to novices and giving great insights to aficionados.  Any fans expecting more from ABC/ESPN are just looking for reasons to take offense.

The referees have been spot-on.  Soccer is the toughest sport to referee in real time and the easiest to referee in slow motion.  In real time, the pitch is gigantic, the action is end-to-end, and the difference between fair and foul is made up of inches and fractions of a second.  Nevertheless, the referees have gotten everything exactly right so far.  From the disallowed Mexican goal for offside despite the defender on the goal line to the Serbian handball to the two red cards that have been handed out so far, everything has been on the money.  In the US-England game in particular, the Brazilian referee who had a reputation for sending players off waived just enough yellow to not interfere in the flow of the game but to make sure nothing got out of hand.  At some point in this tournament, the law of averages dictates that there will be a horrible, impactful mistake by a referee, but so far there can be no complaints.

FIFA and the South African organizers have done a special job.  When the World Cup was awarded to South Africa, many people raised an alarm.  They thought this was a politically correct decision and that South Africa had neither the stadia nor the resources to put on a tournament of this magnitude.  Now that the games are here, the entire affair has been virtually flawless.  The stadia are beautiful and Johannesburg’s Soccer City is simply a marvel.  The pitches have been perfect (how can you have perfect pitches in South Africa in winter and yet Wembley still looks like a motocross track?), and the fans have been as joyous and positive as you could ever hope.  Even the World Cup concert was great.  The entire scene looks glorious, and credit has to go where it is deserved – the excellent South African organizing committee and the team at FIFA who advised, guided, and effectively cajoled them towards success. 

I am sure that there will be events worthy of complaint at some point during this World Cup.  However, so far the entire operation has been as smooth and enjoyable as one could ever hope.

Triesman's Claims Were Unfounded

Amidst the battle for the right to host the 2018 World Cup, England’s bid was dealt a severe blow as British paper, The Mail On Sunday decided to run a story which stated that Lord Triesman (who at the time was the head of the English F.A and the England World Cup bid) suggested that Spain and Russia had an agreement, in which Russia’s bid would be supported by Spain if Russia helped bribe referees in Spain’s favour at the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. FIFA investigated this claim and found no evidence of any wrong doing by either the Spanish F.A or the Russian F.A. Triesman’s comments appear to be somewhat unfounded, and you have to believe that if he truly believed that this corruption was occurring he would have spoke out about it sooner or at least informed FIFA in a silent matter. But the question in the title of this blog stems from a conversation I had with one of my housemates a few months ago, and we both believed that there was a fair amount of bribery and dodgy dealings in not only football but sport in general. Another one of my housemates joined the conversation about half way through and laughed off such an idea; but the fact is that you don’t know that these things are happening until the people involved are caught.

In 2002, it was suggested that South Korea’s wonderful run in the 2002 World Cup was of some convienience to FIFA, as a number of bad referee decisions saw cries of match fixing from the likes of Italy and Spain. I recently saw an interview with James Richardson, who is the oracle of Italian football in England, in which he some what suggested that he agreed with them claims, but in the end there was no investigation and instead Sepp Blatter put it down to ‘poor standard of refereeing’. This season, Southampton great Matt Le Tissier revealed that he was involved in a betting scam in which he was asked to kick the ball of play so he could see a big return. This was something Le Tissier had on his concince for about 14 years before the public knew about it, although it doesn’t seem like a significant alteration to the match, it does make you wonder how many times this happens, because if it was done correctly – like Le Tissier’s fix – no one will ever know.

There is also the huge Italian football scam revelation that rocked the Italian F.A and saw punishments brought upon a number of clubs that thought they were some what untouchable. And then there was an investigation from FIFA into a number of Eastern European sides that were attempting a big pay out from European competitions, a scam which involved a lot of games in some of the biggest competitions in the world. I won’t even go into Messers, Redknapp and Souness who have had their own dodgy dealings come under the spotlight, but these isolated incidents don’t necessarily suggest that the governing body’s caught every incident.

I’m not sugggesting that football has turned into WWE, where it is pre-determined what the outcome will be in every case. But anyone who has played a video game will know how fallable people are to exploiting the system in order for their own gain. I’m a big fan of the FIFA game series, and in particular the Ultimate Team add on, but lately on the Xbox 360, people are using a cheat in which they control the players of your team, making the game unplayable. I’m more interested in what other people think and what their feelings on the subject are and think it is an interesting disscussion point. Do you think that Match fixing and bribery is common? Do you think that FIFA had a say in South Korea’s 2002 World Cup run? Is it possible to cause corruption at the biggest tournament in football?

When you are 11 years old, the word “gay” has a very specific meaning.  It has nothing to do with homosexuality.  It is all-purpose adjective that refers to some activity or event that no self-respecting 11 year old boy would want anything to do with.  Classical music was gay.  Picnics with egg salad sandwiches were gay.  The “It’s a Small World” ride at Disneyland was gay.

When I was 11, I thought soccer was gay.

How could it not be?  Sports was an activity broadcast on network television with production values and drunken announcers like Howard Cosell.  Soccer was (at least in Los Angeles) a grainy, week-old, video of a Bundesliga game broadcast on PBS (which in itself is gay) narrated by some guy with a British accent.  I played Little League and basketball, and one year my mom signed me up for soccer because she thought it was European, and thus cultural (i.e. gay).  Our team name was The Leprechauns (how gay is that?) because some kid’s Irish dad was the coach.  No thanks to my skills, we ended up winning our league, and I hid that trophy way back in the closet where nobody would ever see it and told my mom that I never wanted to play that dumb sport again.

That opinion about soccer pretty much stayed unchanged until 1994.  To be specific, June 28, 1994.  I was living in Washington DC, and a friend had invited me to see Italy play Mexico in the World Cup at RFK Stadium.  I understood that the World Cup was a big deal, and that a lot of people were into it.  Having been in Los Angeles for the Olympics a decade before, I learned that you could go to sporting events for which you had no interest (I saw West Germany beat Romania in Team Handball!) and still have a good time, so I went. 

That game was like nothing I have ever seen.  The Olympics were filled with singing and dancing and that stupid flag and lots of polite cheering.  In fact, if I was 11 at the time, I would have called the Olympics gay.  This, on the other hand, was about naked nationalism, unbridled passion, and an unalloyed desire to see your team triumph.  When the Italians scored just after halftime, their fans were in ecstasy.  Kirk Gibson home run ecstasy.  The Mexican fans emotionally crumbled.  When Mexico scored 10 minutes later, the emotions reversed.  The game ended in a 1-1 draw, and even though cynical American sports fans were supposed to feel unsatisfied at a draw, I was enraptured.  Totally hooked.  And, eventually, obsessed.

It is an obsession that has never really slacked.  Someone gave me Fever Pitch and I became an Arsenal fan.   The MLS started and I became a Galaxy fan.  Every four summers I devoted myself to what I came to accept as the greatest piece of sporting entertainment that existed.  I read about soccer.  I surf the net about soccer.  And, if you are reading this, you will know that I write about soccer. 

I still like baseball and love college football and basketball, but soccer is my chief obsession.  I try not to be evangelical about soccer with my friends.  People who harp about how great the sport is often come off as sounding a little snooty to the uninitiated.  Nevertheless, I try to lasso at least a few people every World Cup into following the tournament.  “Watch a few games, and I bet you will not be able to let it go.”  Those that I can convince end up loving the tournament, and though not all become fanatics about the sport, at least they can appreciate what I see in it.

So, that is my advice to you, the American reader of World Cup Buzz.  Don’t jump on a soapbox about the World Cup.  Don’t preach to the world about “The Beautiful Game.”  Don’t get into inane arguments with people who parrot Jim Rome’s nonsense.  Just get a couple of close friends to commit to watching the World Cup this summer.  Let them soak in the experience.  In all likelihood, you will create a soccer fan.

And, perhaps, a soccer obsessive.

I have traveled in Southern Africa several times for business, and I am always struck when I talk to South Africans about Nelson Mandela.  When talking to black South Africans, they look at Mandela as a hero and the father of their country, but they also have a more nuanced view and remain frustrated at some of the pothole-type problems that plague everyday life in their emerging country.

However, when talking to white Afrikaners about their former President, there is no nuance.  I have seen more than one Afrikaner slam his hand down on the table and say with their quirky phrase, “Full stop- the greatest man this country has ever produced.”

So how did this “convicted” terrorist who spent 30 years in prison emerge from his cell to seduce the white minority and build the most stable, multi-ethnic and economically thriving democracy on the African continent?

In his terrific new movie Invictus, director Clint Eastwood tries to answer that question by focusing on the 1995 Rugby World Cup.  Based on John Carlin’s book Playing The Enemy,  Eastwood’s Mandela, played brilliantly by Morgan Freeman, is a leader who has studied the white Afrikaner closely.  Mandela knows that in order to build his nation, he must find ways to break down white fears over being a minority and get them to buy into their new South Africa.

Rugby, a sport vital to Afrikaner culture and a symbol of the Afrikaner ideal of grit and manliness, proves to be the vehicle that Mandela needed.  An amateur boxer in his youth, Mandela understood the power that sport can have. From his jail cell on Robben Island, Mandela taught himself the Afrikaans language and would listen to the incessant conversations his jailers would have about the sport.  Upon emerging from prison, he advocated that the 1995 Rugby World Cup be held in South Africa and that international rugby end its boycott against playing the Springboks, the name of the South African national team.

This was not an easy concession for Mandela to enforce.  To black South Africans, the green and gold Springbok jersey was a symbol of white oppressive rule, and many blacks wanted the team renamed and the colors changed.  Mandela, who understood the deep attachment whites had for the team, fought this, and in one of the best scenes in the film, made a surprise visit to a meeting of the new South African sports ministry to prevent this change.  His portrayal of Mandela’s speech to these sports officials, both compassionate and calculating, is Oscar-worthy stuff for Freeman.

On the other end of this equation is the Springbok captain Francois Pienaar, played by Matt Damon.  Pienaar is a man who has spent his whole life thinking about rugby, and has probably never had an opinion about politics one way or another.  However, just as he seduced his prison guards, his prison warden, the Minister of Justice and eventually the last white South African President FW De Klerk, Mandela convinces Pienaar to enlarge his vision and use the team to help unify the country.

The problem is the Springboks are not a great team.  After years of being boycotted out of the rugby community, the team is outclassed when it plays internationally.  However, inspired by Mandela, Pienaar pushes the team in its training and its attitude.  The team embraces the black community that once feared it, and by the time the World Cup comes, the ’Boks are prepared and the country is behind them.

It is at this point that the film takes an extra pass or two rather than properly running the ball across the line for a score.  The rugby scenes themselves run long, especially the final game between the Springboks and the New Zealand All-Blacks.  Rugby is a difficult game to portray on film – it is better seen from afar than up close – and the actual final game was a tough slow war of attrition with few big plays.  Eastwood captures all the drama leading up to the game, including Mandela’s famous walk onto the field wearing Pienaar’s #6 Springbok jersey and the nearly all-white crowd chanting “Nelson, Nelson…”  However, the game itself seems to go on, and the ending for most movie goers was never in doubt.

The South Africa that is preparing to host the 2010 FIFA World Cup is a different place than the South Africa portrayed by Eastwood, Freeman and Damon.  It is a calmer, less dramatic and more business-like place.  The daily papers are more concerned with the value of the Rand than multi racial reconciliation.  For many South Africans, this summer’s World Cup will be a triumph of commerce rather than sport.  That is all as it should be.  Thanks to Mandela, Pienaar and the millions who put aside their grievances and embraced their new country, the life and death drama can just occur on the field instead of around it.

The controversial handball by Frenchman Thierry Henry is still causing shockwaves despite much of the sparks and debates calming down after FIFA ruled out any possibility of replaying the match. In addition, FIFA obviously refused to grant Ireland an extra spot in South Africa. Adding the Republic of Ireland to the World Cup draw would make no sense (no disrespect to Ireland and its fans). Making changes would imply having to rework the format for the World Cup which is time consuming and unacceptable. Some would argue if Ireland were allowed, then Costa Rica must be included in South Africa too as some feel Uruguay scored an illegitimate goal from an offside position.

Irrespective of FIFA’s stance and public opinion, rules cannot be bent or changed at the request of one or a couple of entities. The wise thing was for FIFA to order the France-Ireland encounter to be replayed based on a blatant case of injustice. No team should be allowed to go through to South Africa because it feels unjustly eliminated. A quick glance back at World Cup 2002 would show the South Koreans received one favour after another to get positive results against Portugal, Italy and then Spain while pushing through to the World Cup semi-finals. Did Portugal, Italy or Spain decide to withdraw, stop the match or officially ask for a replay? Without diminishing the current situation, a review of some of the mind-boggling decisions which transpired during the games between the Koreans and the three European sides reveals mistakes happen whether intentionally or not.

The best solution would be to reprimand and hold Henry accountable by suspending him. Recently FIFA President Sepp Blatter disclosed information pertaining to the situation as he admitted there will be a review of Henry’s conduct by the disciplinary committee. The question remains whether Henry will be suspended in the course of the season (Barcelona is not concerned with this so it ought to be a ban on the national level) or for a number of matches with the French team since the misconduct occurred on duty with France. Since the Irish feel they were inappropriately eliminated, then should FIFA suspend the main culprit for the duration of the event in South Africa as a small remedy for the unjust ousting of the Irish?

FIFA’s committee must carefully study the situation before taking any further action which could potentially create another furor instead of trying to address some of the controversy created by Henry’s handball. One thing springs to mind: Henry admitted to the handball after and not during the match. As such, there is no reason not to punish the French forward for his actions during the match.

In Serie A, video replay is used by the disciplinary arm of the ruling body to punish those responsible for major incidents which were not caught by the referee during the course of the match. No obvious rule stands against doing the same with Henry.

Following the controversial decision to allow France’s goal to stand as Thierry Henry clearly handled the ball prior to assisting William Gallas, it is only normal to have increased complaints and ever growing displeasure at the level of refereeing. Some may attribute this to a conspiracy which necessitates the presence of France in South Africa 2010 at the expense of the Irish.

Others will point to the hotly contested Egypt versus Algeria play-off match which took place in Sudan (Egypt’s preferred location) and not Tunisia (location chosen by the Algerians) after controversial pre-match incidents when the two sides met in Cairo over the weekend. Algeria’s bus was subjected to rough treatment to say the least and under other circumstances the match would have been postponed or Egypt would have been forced to forfeit the match if proof of injury was given. In either case, the match went on and the Egyptians, with some claiming they were favoured by FIFA, succeeded in getting the necessary 2-0 win to force a play-off match. Obviously, the match in Sudan ended in Algeria’s favour to dispel any claims that FIFA was going to have the Egyptians in next summer’s World Cup.

Going back to the important point about key refereeing decisions, the error made yesterday was obvious since Henry blatantly handled the ball and it is hard to believe the linesman could not spot that infringement. However, if one is to look at this Youtube.com clip featuring some unacceptable and appalling behaviour from a female athlete during a college soccer game in the United States, it is unbelievable how she managed not to get sent-off on at least five of those violent occasions. It is inconceivable to think that a referee, at any level, cannot notice such abuse inflicted by this supposed sportswoman on the opponent’s players.

In addition, how far has football and sports in general deteriorated and taken a step back at the expense of achieving success on the pitch, satisfying hungry sponsors or feeding the deeper pockets? Even at the amateur level where sportsmanship should be engraved and highlighted, this case, despite being quite unique with this particular female player endangering the career and well-being of her opponents, shows that some would go quite far to achieve success and/or their objective at any expense.

No one is comparing Henry to this female because he does not have the reputation of a dirty player but what happened against Ireland may have earned him the reputation of a cheat. Earlier this season there were different incidents involving two Premier League players though the circumstances were quite different. In one case, Emmanuel Adebayor was involved in two ugly and controversial incidents in the clash against his former team Arsenal. Adebayor ran the length of the pitch to celebrate in front of the Arsenal fans after scoring for Manchester City and he also stamped on Robin van Persie’s head. Indeed, football has become a highly charged profession but what excuses Adebayor’s unacceptable behaviour as a professional who gets paid ridiculous sums to perform for the public?

In the second situation, Arsenal’s Croatian player Eduardo da Silva was accused of simulation in the Champions League when he won a penalty against Celtic. Since that incident, doubts have surfaced whenever Eduardo fell in the penalty area. There is no guarantee that players from opposing sides will begin to feel suspicious whenever Henry takes a dive or does something they deem inappropriate. Henry may have helped France qualify but he did damage his reputation along the way.

Have a look at the clip and decide for yourself! Sometimes decisions are really down to mistakes done by referees in a split-second but this goes beyond any comprehension of the basic rules of officiating.