FIFA corruption and duplicity must not go unexposed

Today’s announcement that Russia will host the 2018 World Cup was nothing short of a shambles. David Beckham, one of England’s ambassadors for the bid, was more diplomatic and praised Russia and Qatar as ‘two great countries’.

The romance of taking football to the east is completely lost on me I’m afraid. In awarding the 2018 World Cup to one of the most corrupt countries in the world, FIFA has truly shamed itself. The awarding of the 2022 World Cup to Qatar, a country whose bid was described by FIFA itself as ‘seriously high-risk’, borders on the ludicrous.

One could argue that it makes sense for FIFA to award the World Cup to nations which have never before hosted the tournament. It could encourage the development of the game in these countries. However, in that case, there is no point in countries such as England bidding for future tournaments. The Premier League Chairman has said that England’s excellent stadia could have counted against our bid. Sepp Blatter and company may have felt that it is better to encourage the development of new stadia and general infrastructure of other countries.

Putting that aside for a moment, the key question for me is how England’s bid, which many FIFA officials described as being the strongest all-round bid, managed to muster only 2 out of 22 votes in the voting process, resulting in elimination at the first stage. The members of England’s bid team were clearly lied to by several members of the FIFA Executive Committee, whose promised England their votes. The much-maligned British media should expose these members for their duplicity.

It is clear that many backroom deals must have been done between Russia and representatives of other member states. Watching today’s proceedings was highly reminiscent of watching the voting process in the Eurovision Song Contest. Serbia and other Eastern Europe states don’t even try and hide the fact that they are openly biased towards Russia; Serbian winters are extremely cold and Moscow turning off the gas would be highly inconvenient.

As news coverage has suggested, part of the problem of the FA is that England didn’t ‘work the room’. We don’t do schmoozing, infiltrating and influencing very well. If England plans a future bid to host the World Cup, the FA need to play a more active role in FIFA, infiltrating its various committees. The higher echelons of FIFA are rank with corruption and many of its members need naming and shaming into early retirement.

The bidding process for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups has raised many questions, questions which must not go unanswered.

The Dire Derby

This week’s Manchester derby was the one of the most over-hyped football matches that I can remember.  Manchester derbies are usually tense, passionate affairs; last season, Manchester United snatched victory in injury time on both occasions.  But this time we had a Manchester United side which has started the season lethargically and has had a defence, which at times, looked about as secure as an Icelandic bank.  By contrast, Manchester City are flushed with cash, bankrolled by UAE oil tycoon Sheikh Manzour.  This was supposedly a chance for the boys from Eastlands (which had always sounded like a high-security prison to me) to prove that the balance of power of in Manchester has shifted.  There is something very nouveau riche about Manchester City’s transformation.  In many ways, it’s like watching Wayne and Waynetta Slob buying a mansion in the Surrey countryside.  Perhaps I am just a football aristocrat at heart.

Anyway, I digress slightly.  The point is that the media managed to kill what could have been a thrilling game.  For Manchester City, defeat would have illustrated how money can’t buy success and how Sheikh Manzour’s money would have been better spent on a bigger palace.  For Manchester United, defeat would have shown that the Fall of Rome was not far away.  The determination of both sides not to lose stymied any creativity or risk-taking.  The media had ended up talking a potentially brilliant game into its grave.

Both Roberto Mancini and Sir Alex will not be too displeased with a point.  It still feels as it we are early on in the season and that things will kick on after Christmas.

 

 

Descent into Darkness

This weekend, the United Kingdom puts its clocks back to move from British Summer Time to Greenwich Mean Time.  Many people are looking forward to an extra hour in bed on Saturday night/Sunday morning.  I must confess that I have never understood this view myself.  Don’t get me wrong, I like nothing more than a good night’s sleep.  But in my view, the trade off is losing one hour of afternoon daylight for five months of the year in return for one extra hour in bed for one night of the year.  This is like someone saying ‘I’ll give you £10 now if you give me £20 a month for the next five months.’

I was on a train back from Manchester this evening.  I exited Huddersfield train station at what turned out to be 6.00pm, emerging into the early evening darkness.  I turned round to check the time on the station clock.  It said it was 5.00pm.  And then I realised that the station had changed its clock early and that from Sunday, it would be that dark at 5.00pm.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11642878

http://www.lighterlater.org/benefits.html

Rather than reiterate in detail the health and energy benefits of moving to Central European Time, I have provided two links which make the case for moving to CET (GMT+1 in the winter and GMT+2 in the summer- time zone of much of the European Union).  Considering the pressing need to lower our energy usage and take more exercise, it seems very logical to revisit this issue.

There are obvious drawbacks to moving Britain’s clocks to Central European Time.  On the shortest day of the year, sunrise would not occur until around 9.20am in Leeds and 9.45am in Glasgow.  This would be a shock to the system.  It would mean that children go to school in dark for part of the year.  However, the crucial point is that there would be an estimated 100 fewer road deaths per year if Britain moved to Central European Time.  The increase in road accidents in the morning would be more than outweighed by a decrease in road accidents in the evenings.  This is precisely what happened when Britain used Central European Time between 1968 to 1971.  However, the results of the trial were not properly analysed and it was abandoned after the House of Commons heard emotionally-charged anecdotes from Scottish MPs children getting knocked down in the morning darkness.  The fact that much fewer children were involved in road accidents in the evening (even in Scotland) was completely ignored.

I can see both sides of the time zone argument.  But I think that the issue is worthy of revisiting.  On December 3rd, MP Rebecca Harris will put a Private Member’s Bill before the Commons which asks the government to review the benefits and drawbacks of moving to Central European Time and then to proceed to move to CET on a trial basis only.  This seems like a very sensible proposal to me.

In my view, the arguments of many people who refuse to consider the idea of a time zone change are based more on emotion than logic and reason.  Some people say that we ‘should’ be on GMT given our longitude.  It is true that time zones are loosely based upon longitude, but are there to be manipulated in order to ensure that natural light is used as efficiently as possibly.  France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain all use Central European Time, even though Geography suggest that GMT would be a more appropriate time zone; France and Belgium used to be in the same time zone as us, but moved one hour ahead after being subjugated by Germany in World War II.  During the war, Britain also went onto what is now Central European Time to make the most of natural daylight.  But whereas France and Belgium stayed with Central European Time after the war, Britain went back to GMT.  After all, what’s the point of winning a war only to adopt the time zone of your enemy?

As a nation, we revisit the GMT vs CET issue every year at this time.  The facts are clearly in favour of at least a trial of Central European Time.  At a time when the government are taking a sledgehammer to public services and many people’s jobs are at risk, you might ask why I choose to write a blog post about this issue.  I have done so because putting the clocks back has an impact on people’s lives. It would be nice to be able to come home from work and go outside again in the daylight.  People would go out more, take more exercise and be less fearful of crime.  There would be fewer accidents on the roads.  And it would save money and help to combat climate change if we could put the lights and heating on one hour later.

Putting the clocks back means that we will temporarily have more morning daylight, but people don’t use as much energy in the morning as they do in the evening.  There are those who say that people who want more daylight should just change their work patterns and get up earlier.  But not everyone has the luxury of flexitime at work.  These days, people generally get up later and go to bed later.  Very few people get up at the crack of dawn to milk the cows at 4am and blow out the bedroom candles at 9pm.  Some people, specifically farmers, still live like this.  But most people do not.  And while I understand why farmers in the Hebrides are against a time zone change, the fact is that the majority of people in the United Kingdom do not live in northern Scotland (Jeremy Bentham anyone?)  In a nutshell, our hours of daylight are out of sync with the hours we keep in ourselves.  It would be much easier to move our clocks an hour forward than to change the time at which we do everything.

As I said, I can see why some people want to keep to Greenwich Mean Time in winter.  This is why I support the idea of a trial and a review of using Central European Time.  I hope that logic and reason will eventually have an impact on people’s thinking on this issue.

Now, if you will excuse me, I must get to bed.  I have to be up at 3.30am to go and get water from the well.