Blatter and Platini: FIFA, UEFA, and the Not so "Good-Looking" Reforms

It’s difficult to pick holes in a man that so readily offers himself up as the village idiot. So when the honourable Sepp Blatter described one of the candidates for the women-only seats on the FIFA executive committee as “good, and good-looking” this week, no one seemed too surprised.

Sure, the political correctness sideshow will rumble into town and start lopping off noses until they feel justice is done, but is it really worth it?

There have already been links made between this incident and Alexandra Wrages’ resignation last month, who cited compromises being made in the FIFA reforms as her reason for leaving, and the story will probably congeal in the opinion pages for the next few weeks before eventually being forgotten.

But why?

It’s not as if Blatter was until a day or two ago a figure who was lavished with praise for his responsible leadership of the governing body to the world’s most popular sport; he has proved himself to be an obstacle to anyone that tries to be in the least bit forward thinking, let alone the rest of it.

Why are there reforms being made in FIFA? Because the old men that run it realised that they had pushed their luck a little too far, but instead of being hounded out of office they were given the opportunity to try and back-paddle.

Old Blatter nearly played an ace this time. By expanding the number of women-only seats on the committee from one to three he almost gave the impression of being mobile. If only he’d kept his mouth shut - but this is Sepp Blatter we’re talking about.

His comments don’t shock as some will inevitable try to claim they do; rather, they are outdated remarks from a seriously outdated man. What is really grating is how this is yet another gaffe from the former general secretary of the Swiss Ice-Hockey Association that will likely go ignored, if not in the media then certainly in Zurich.

It’s a growing trend that anyone who even slightly opposes the FIFA President will soon go, be it voluntarily or not. Alexandra Wrage’s concern was that certain proposals—which included disclosing FIFA executive salaries and tougher criteria for the awarding of World Cup tournaments—were being compromised, and she consequently resigned.

Let’s look at the two issues for a second—money, and the World Cup. A FIFA exec would say the two are unrelated; an honest person would imply that they are inextricably linked. While nothing has been proven, there is a bitter feeling in the football world that the 2018 and 2022 World Cups were given to Russia and Qatar respectively because of money changing hands. The feeling is strong enough that there is now an investigation underway into the bidding process of these two tournaments.

Is this what it takes to get rid of Blatter and his minions, an inquiry into bribery allegations? You’d think that the other members would have simply voted him out to be replaced by a more upstanding man, but that didn’t wash with old Sepp.

Mohamed Bin Hammam challenged Blatter’s position in 2011, only to end up having bribery allegations thrown at him. However, the telling detail is that although Bin Hammam is no longer with FIFA having attracted a lifetime ban, a case brought by FIFA against him on bribery charges was dropped last year due to lack of evidence.

It’s not just corruption and scandal that Blatter can include on his resume. The business and economics graduate has also built a reputation for being indecisive and complacent, with the perception of him as a bloated business man rather than a passionate football lover becoming very hard to deny, if it was ever contestable.

Now let's take a look at the man who looks likely to succeed Blatter, Michel Platini.

Racism is present in football at varying degrees depending on where you are, but one thing that is inexcusable is inaction from the governing body. But first of all, credit where it’s due—in spite of fears of encountering racism during the 2012 European Championships in Poland and Ukraine, well done to UEFA for taking the risk which could have gone either way but came off superbly. What a tournament that was.

Now to the gristle.

When an England U21 match against Serbia ended with an on-pitch scuffle between players and staff on both sides, the main story revolved around Tottenham full-back Danny Rose. Rose, who is black, was sent off at the end of the game for kicking the ball into the stands, but he then alleged that it was in retaliation for 90 minutes of racist abuse, including having stones thrown at him.

Enter UEFA in their wisdom. Apparently a match behind closed doors and a paltry fine of 80,000 euros is punishment enough. And that’s without the insult to injury of Steven Caulker and Thomas Ince being given two- and one- match bans respectively, seemingly for being racially abused, though Caulker's was later overturned.

Michel Platini, the president of UEFA, later announced that the organisation would appeal its own sanctions, with the undertone being that the fine was not enough, but the damage had already been done.

The reason I mention Platini and UEFA is simple: despite the fact that the former French international and triple consecutive Ballon d 'Or winner was a phenomenal player, he is steadily unraveling that reputation with an irritatingly stubborn approach to his current job. That, and even though he is apparently unsure whether he will stand for the FIFA presidential election as feared (he is currently vice-president) it could quite easily be a smokescreen, and it seems wiser to bet in favour of him rather than against.  

A major bone of contention is that while Blatter has pushed for goal-line technology--albeit very late--Platini, on the other hand, is vehemently opposed.

It’s difficult to see the logic in any of Platini’s arguments against technology. The central view is that it will dehumanise the game, but surely--forgetting that a team's chances of victory could be compromised--letting machines help the officials is simple technological progression?

It’s when nonsensical reasons like this come out that people start looking for darker incentives.

However, Platini did the hard work for us, and openly admitted that costs are a large factor. Costs? At £250,000 a pop, it feels as though if Platini and his colleagues donated just a small percentage of their salaries, it would probably about cover it. So much for valuing football over money, eh?

Platini is the prime entrant for the 2015 election, with it looking like a simple hand-down of power rather than a fair vote: if he makes it into office then we could be looking at a very short-lived revolution as far as technology is concerned. We'll just have to hope that Angel Villar can garner some powerful friends before then--though it is unlikely he will be able to oust the practical incumbent of Platini. 

The incidents and quotes don’t prove a point or dispel an allegation; instead, they shed a bit of light on the chaotic goings-on of our esteemed governing bodies.

The “good-looking” bite; the bribery; the lack of action then sudden U-turn over punishments for racism; the World Cup being held in a desert; they all indicate that these two organisations are so disorganised and corrupt that the only solution is dissolution. The election of Platini as FIFA president would only serve to concentrate the mismanagement into one steaming bowl.

The harsh truth is that the only reason the reforms are happening is because there is pressure. It’s not about morality or self-improvement; just a man trying to keep himself and others in a lucrative job. That’s why Blatter’s comments about Moya Dodd were improper, but not surprising—he’s not necessarily sexist, but he’s moronic enough to give people reason to believe that he might be.

The optimal (and not too far-fetched) way to go would be for all the clubs to form a breakaway organisation, where the members are a) elected fairly, and more importantly b) football people. Be it ex-managers, players, pundits or commentators, just so long as they’re football people, instead of greed-heads.