In the week that saw the final round of European group qualifying games for the 2006 FIFA World Cup, the Sepp Blatter PR machine has once again been going full throttle in reverse.
In a column in the Financial Times he complained of the "pornographic" sums of money being paid to players, some of whom he believes are half-educated. He also criticised the new breed of moneyed football club owner who, he said, are coming into the game to further their own agendas.
So let’s get one thing straight. What exactly is a "pornographic" sum of money? Is it simply the difference between being hard-up and hard-on?
Whatever…coming from the man who once claimed that one of the best ways of raising the level of interest in women’s football would be to have them wear shorter shorts, this might appear to be yet another almost unbelievable communications blunder.
But although Blatter’s outpourings make it easy to lampoon him, it's important not to let the heat created by his clumsy and ill-advised delivery obscure his message.
It would be foolish to pretend that there are not serious issues around the massive influx of money into certain clubs. Essentially they concern the balance of competition that is essential for any sport to maintain the interest of the public. Additionally, there are undeniable long-term problems which arise when wealthy clubs buy up huge numbers of talented players and effectively warehouse them because only 11 players can take the field in each game. The full impact of this will only be seen at the World Cup when players who should be in the national teams are ring-rusty because they’ve only played a handful of games.
If Sepp Blatter, as head of football’s global governing body, can’t lead this debate, who can? It's simply a great shame that its started in such a ham-fisted fashion.
* * * * * *
While Australia play a World XI team in the ICC’s Super Series Test in Sydney, cricket is back on the pages of the UK newspapers.
This time it's not more rosy memories of the summer’s Ashes triumph that is troubling the sub-editors, but English village cricket. You know the sort of thing. A perfect summer’s Sunday afternoon, the gentle thud of leather on willow, the occasional gentle ripple of applause as a wicket falls or a six sails over the boundary into the adjoining churchyard.
Well, not exactly.
This time the papers have been reporting a court case that centres on a game in Cambridgeshire in which a teenage player was allegedly attacked by a 38-year-old opponent.
The allegation is that the young bowler - who had previously been slogged around the ground – finally took the older batsman’s wicket. As the older man set off for the pavilion he claims he was verbally insulted, and responded by knocking the boy to the ground and setting about him with his bat.
As the boy’s watching parents ran onto the field to rescue him, the alleged assailant’s brother – who just for good measure has an artificial leg – also entered the fray.
All in all it was a most un-English affair and completely against the spirit of modern cricket. Verbal insults, or sledging, has become an integral part of the game, rather like cucumber sandwiches and wishy-washy tea. It's simply outrageous that anybody should respond to an insult – and a fairly routine one at that – with violence.
You have to wonder how this guy would deal with the really top drawer sledging which goes on in the first-class or international game.
One favorite example is of the Zimbabwean batsman who was being taunted about his weight by a certain Australian fast bowler.
On being asked for the umpteenth time ‘how come you’re so fat’ he turned to the bowler and replied: “Because every time I f*** your missus she gives me a biscuit.” Brilliant!
* * * * * * *
So NTL and ITV have offered to pay £170 million a year for the 50 per cent of Premier League rights, that they believe will come onto the market in the next round of negotiations at the insistence of the EU Competitions directorate.
That’s half the amount Sky is paying for all of the rights.
There are a couple of issues here. First, why Sky would pay anything like its current fee for non-exclusive rights. If there's no competition why not bid a fiver? Second, is this not the same NTL that agreed and then dropped out of a deal to show a package of live matches in the last round of negotiations. And the same ITV that bid a massive amount for rights to the Football League to launch its digital channel, only for it to go bust after a few months, leaving many clubs struggling to survive.
* * * * * * * *
A survey this week from a company called Venue Solutions shows that the threat of terrorism is the main security fear of Londoners ahead of the 2012 Olympic Games in their city...but that they would be unwilling to wait 40 minutes to have their bags searched before entering stadiums.
This is part of the challenge that the security sector faces around not only London 2012 but other major sports events, and one of the subjects to be covered at the second International Sports Security Summit being held in London on January 19 and 20, 2006.
