Monday Match Report: The best game of the weekend that you may not have seen

The newest regular Monday feature set to become an internet sensation, 'Monday Match Report' gives you the best game of the week, but not the usual Manchester United thrashing of Blackburn Rovers at home, nor a tense, high-scoring Premier League six pointer at the foot of the table. This Chemical World has scoured the internet world and produced its recommendation of the game you ought to be watching for the next few days, that is until a similar feature, Friday Football Focus, makes its Blogger debut.

Palermo 0-7 Udinese
Italian Serie A
Sunday 27 Feb 2011

Scorers: Di Natale (10, 41, 61), Sanchez (19, 28, 42, 48)

For video highlights visit: http://bit.ly/gTeBtC.

An incredible result for both teams, surprisingly not Palermo's biggest ever defeat - that honour having been reserved for AC Milan, 9-0 winners over the Rosanero all the way back in 1951 - but their biggest ever reversal at home. Veteran Italy international Antonio Di Natale bagged himself a hat-trick, bringing his Serie A tally to 21, at the expense of nine man Palermo, whilst coveted young Chilean striker Alexis Sanchez netted four against the Renzo Barbera outfit, who will undoubtedly be looking to forget this result as quickly as humanly possible.

Possibly also worth mentioning is the fact that owner Maurizio Zamparini, known for having an 'innovative' approach to hiring and firing, sacked coach Delio Rossi immediately following the defeat. Despite the understandable devastation in the home dressing room at full, and indeed half time, the visitors demonstrated impressive technique in dispatching eighth-placed Palermo, especially in such a clinical and highly impressive manner.

Europe-bound Udinese opened the scoring through Di Natale after ten minutes, the striker latching onto left back Pablo Armero's inch-perfect cross having evaded his marker, cleverly looping the ball just past the desperate dive of Palermo 'keeper Salvatore Sirigu. Abysmal defending from the hosts then allowed Alexis Sanchez to double Udinese's lead after 19 minutes, blasting into the roof of the net after Palermo had failed to clear their lines.

Sanchez proceeded to make it 3-0, finishing off a superbly worked and clinical counter attack from the visitors, demonstrating incredible composure and mesmerising footwork to round Sirigu and fire home, Udinese three goals to the good even before the half hour mark. Sirigu's error then gifted the visitors their fourth, and Di Natale's second, a few minutes before half time, the home 'keeper spilling a shot from distance straight into the path of Bianconeri's lethal front two.

Armero was once again the provider for Sanchez' third goal a minute later, but he ought not to take all the credit; a minimal amount of pressure by Sanchez on Cesare Bovo caused the Palermo defender to surrender possession on the left hand side, before Sanchez relentlessly moved towards goal, firing past Sirigu. Going in 5-0 up at half time did little to deter the Bianconeri, particularly Sanchez, who netted just after the restart to lend the scoreline a particularly one-sided appearance. Di Natale completed his innings, after the superb Sanchez had been withdrawn, scoring from the spot after the troublesome Armero had been clearly felled in the box by Matteo Darmian, the second Palermo player to be dismissed, for his horrendously mistimed and clumsy challenge.

Photos courtesy of (in order): Svenska Fans, Foto Partite, Getty Images, Zimbio

Arsene's Blues - When will the Gunners wait for a trophy end?

Perhaps the statistic most commonly trumpeted by supporters and journalists concerns Arsenal, and the six years in which the north London outfit has failed to triumph in any competition. Arsene Wenger had a golden opportunity to end this streak and silence their critics at Wembley yesterday, facing a Birmingham City side entirely unexpected to reach the final and widely condemned as simply a 'sideshow' alongside the 'main event', and cannon fodder, appropriately, for the Gunners. In the event luck was on the side of the Blues, who won their first major trophy since 1963, a year after the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the Western world was preparing to meet a young group of Liverpool lads called The Beatles, and John F. Kennedy was in the White House.

The combination of little and large won it for City, giant Nikola Zigic heading them in front just inside the half hour mark, the Serbian striker's height making it impossible for the Arsenal defenders, and vindicating manager Alex McLeish's decision to start him. Arsenal fired a few warning shots at the Birmingham defence, superbly marshalled by the excellent Stephen Carr, who led from the front throughout the match, but failed to net an immediate reply. They did level inside fifteen minutes, however, Robin van Persie netting an exquisite equaliser on the turn, after Jack Wilshere's stinging effort had smashed off the crossbar, and Birmingham had failed to clear. With the teams level at half-time, and City naturally reeling from the disappointment of going behind, Arsenal were always going to be the favourites in the second period.

Indeed it transpired as such, the Gunners providing a stiff test of City goalkeeper Ben Foster's ability, but he was more than equal to the challenge. Roger Johnson was a rock at the heart of the Birmingham defence, whilst the substitution of a clearly disappointed Craig Gardner for Chile international Jean Beausejour tipped the midfield balance slightly, and gave the Blues a different attacking dimension for the final half an hour. Few would have imagined the identity of the hero - on-loan attacker Obafemi Martins - but he was another inspired change by McLeish, tormenting Laurent Koscielny and Johan Djorou with his incessant pace and willingness to battle for every ball. His time came in the 89th minute, Zigic's header provoking a catastrophic mix-up between Koscielny and the formerly reliable 'keeper Wojciech Szczesny, who appeared not to call for the ball. The two practically collided, leaving Martins with the simplest finish of his entire career, and undoubtedly the most important goal he has ever scored.

The timing of the strike was crucial as it gave Arsenal no real time to get back into the game, despite a succession of long balls aimed at substitute Nicolas Bendtner as the Gunners abandoned their cautious, elegant build-up in favour of a direct style rarely employed by Wenger's players. The reaction of the thousands of devastated Arsenal fans as the minutes of added time slipped away summed up the day, and the ramifications of this defeat for Arsenal. From anticipating an easy victory against apparently 'lesser' opponents, the Gunners had conspired to essentially hand victory to Birmingham, and throw away the best chance they will have in any competition this season to end the most unwanted record in top-flight football. This ought not to take anything away from Birmingham, however, who battled superbly, admittedly rode their luck, but went for the victory against a technically superior side. The reaction of Alex McLeish and his players showed the extent of Birmingham's achievement - becoming the first team outside of the Premier League 'top six' to win the Carling Cup since Middlesbrough in 2004 - and their joy was well-deserved. McLeish's substitutions were inspired, and although it is presumptuous, the manner in which the Blues approached the second half having suffered the deflating blow of conceding a goal five minutes before the break, suggests that his team talk was particularly inspirational, vital at such a crucial time.

Going back to Arsenal, it may be suggested this defeat could take a quite a long time to recover from. With fans having been dreaming of an unprecedented quadruple, taking for granted victory in yesterday's game, they now face an extremely difficult trip to the Nou Camp, the task of chasing down an imperious Manchester United in the Premier League, and a number of FA Cup games to ensure their second trip to Wembley this season. Whilst it would be foolish to suggest that Arsene Wenger ought to be subject to speculation as to his future at The Emirates, some serious questions will need to be asked, particularly about the manner in which Arsenal approached this game, and Wenger's policy towards young players, much maligned in the past few years. In terms of the Carling Cup itself, today's match was a vindication of the format, and a triumph for excitement, tension and surprise, the core tenets of a relevant and enthralling cup competition. It might be said that English football needed a result like this. Having been served up uninspiring ties for the past few years in the 'showpiece' domestic cup finals, today's story was the sort of fairy-tale supporters up and down the country can appreciate, and long may the Carling Cup enjoy its Indian Summer, and transformation from irrelevant distraction to bastion of unpredictability, upsets and controversy.

Photos courtesy of (in order): The Guardian, Getty, AFP and Reuters

Career opportunities: will they ever knock for the jilted generation?

Apologies for the attempted musical pun in the title, which may perhaps be seen as an attempt to divert attention away from the real issue needing to be explored: the dearth of real graduate employment opportunities in the United Kingdom. After all, the government which a number of us elected is perfectly willing to ignore the ever-growing number of graduates who leave perfectly-reputable universities with impressive degrees, only to find themselves in the same black hole of opportunity currently blighting this country. The fact that Britain has a higher rate of youth unemployment, that is, those aged between 16 and 24 (20.5%) than Bahrain (19.6%), a country in the midst of revolution, is a damning indictment of the government's lack of care for this generation.

Indeed the coalition has been perfectly willing to proceed with its savage programme of funding cuts, which in turn have an adverse effect on the employment rate and the presence of job opportunities for the population as a whole, and raising the cost of tuition fees to astronomical and impossible levels. So the most apt question appears to be: why are the British people not up in arms about this farcical injustice? To be frank, it appears that the population at large simply does not care. University is regarded by many as a right, which of course it is not, and should not be, rather a privilege for those who have demonstrated sufficient levels of hard work, application and intelligence and wish to further their knowledge at a higher level. Yet for the older generations in particular the student lifestyle is often open to ridicule and inaccurate stereotyping. Yet whilst students admittedly spend the best three years of their lives at university, paying a significant amount of money to do so, is it not fair that when they graduate they should be entering a world in which their talents are rewarded and utilised by the government for the technological, social and economic advancement of the country and the rest of the population. Seemingly not.

Admittedly a few have been willing to raise their heads gently and cautiously above the parapet to reveal the true, shocking state of affairs surrounding graduate job opportunities. However they are constantly being shouted down, amidst repetitive statements of 'a fair chance for all' from the government and employers. As a student expecting at least a 2:1 grade in my degree, I am frankly insulted by the notion that being unemployed for a significant proportion of time, as I almost certainly will be upon the culmination of my three year course, is a fair reflection of my abilities. Graduate schemes appear to hold the key, but in fact are just as false as the statements and press releases emerging from Number Ten. The fact is that youth unemployment ought to be one of the biggest millstones hanging around the coalition's neck, but instead it appears to have been well and truly swept under the carpet.

The millionaires currently running this country appear to have decided that individuals spending upwards of £2,000 to obtain and finance work experience from which they gain no full time employment or monetary recompense are being fairly treated. They appear to think that it is fair for a graduate who has paid upwards of £20,000, all costs taken into account, to finance a degree whereby they enjoy just a few hours of contact time a week, to expect to be unemployed for months and possibly years following graduation. These are not exaggerated examples. They may not yet be the norm but in a few years’ time, without a significant reversal of policy, these tales of woe may be the common denominator amongst graduates who, shockingly and quite probably, could have even fewer job opportunities and in effect 'life chances', and a far greater burden of debt. Welcome to the big bad world kids, just try not to let that £30,000 you owe become a distraction whilst you sign on every week...

Photos courtesy of (in order) - The Daily Mail, Labour List, Socialist Worker

‘An ugly scene’ – Is the spectre of hooliganism creeping back into the beautiful game?

Football hooliganism is by no means a modern phenomenon; indeed since the dark days of the 1970s, when fights and football went hand-in-hand, and the tragic era of the 1980s, when a combination of inadequate stadia, ill-behaved supporters and a policing strategy geared towards ‘containment’ rather than safety combined to result in successive disasters, it has lurked uneasily beneath the surface. Naturally with the advent of substantial television revenues and the subsequent explosion in ticket prices, which has transformed this ‘working man’s sport’ into a penchant for the privileged, the more notorious ‘hooligan element’ has been mostly priced out. Yet as Millwall displayed at the weekend, despite having safe, all-seater stadia and astronomical ticket prices, coupled with the gentrification of football in the past twenty years, the potential for trouble remains. The spectre of Millwall supporters hurling coins and bottles at the visiting Middlesbrough players brought memories of the 1980s vividly back to life.

Whilst the majority of fans would naturally abhor such displays of violence and flagrant disrespect for the ‘rules of engagement’ most supporters adhere to, it is nevertheless a situation which the authorities ought to be monitoring. One might justifiably say that clubs such as Millwall are the exception, having more or less constantly been associated with hooliganism over the past 40 years, and likewise Cardiff City and West Ham United, both of whom have tainted pasts and presents in that regard. Yet it is the clubs which, for one reason or another, appear to be falling into the trap, devoid of the sort of reputation which sets Millwall apart from the Football League pack, whom we ought to be worrying about. For instance the club I support, Queens Park Rangers, has recently accrued a number of negative headlines and a not insignificant number of column inches relating to clashes with visiting fans in and around the Loftus Road area. Indeed the number of police officers and riot vans patrolling the stadium during last night’s visit of Ipswich Town, themselves not a club widely associated with hooliganism, was a worrying portent as to the direction which this, as it prefers to be publicised, ‘family club’ may be heading.

It may be pertinent at this point to remind ourselves of just how far football has come in the past two decades, particularly in this country. The 1980s saw football played in out-dated, often dilapidated grounds entirely unfit for their advertised capacities. Fans were penned in, often uncomfortably and, tragically, fatally at Hillsborough in 1989. Back then these problems were easily disguised and offset by the headline-making actions of a few mindless ‘supporters’ for whom the football was a sideshow, and fights with opposing fans were their raison d’etre. The fact that just purpose-built ground, Glanford Park in Scunthorpe, emerged from 1955 until 1988, whilst millions of pounds were spent on policing and hundreds of fences erected around football grounds is an indictment of the manner in which hooliganism for far too long covered up football’s ills. Yet this is not the situation nowadays. Since the Taylor Report in 1990 recommended the introduction of all-seater stadiums across the United Kingdom, many of these such grounds have come into existence. Stadiums such as The Riverside in Middlesbrough, The Ricoh Arena in Coventry and Pride Park in Derby stand as testatement to a sea change in attitudes towards safety and investment in football.

Yet what this also means is that supporters and supporters’ groups can no longer hide behind the banner of unsafe stadia and unfair policing priorities to cover up the lawless actions of a minority. Football cannot and it mustn’t return to the 1970s and 1980s, and nor do I believe it could. The demographic of a typical fan-base for even a Championship or League One club nowadays is so vastly different and has grown up or at least become accustomed to an entirely different footballing universe than its predecessor. Yet we must condemn the few and their attempts to bring football back into the dark ages. By no means do I wish to claim that modern football is a perfect, flawless game for that would be a fallacy that I could not endorse. Yet it would be a shame to see all the hard work described above go to waste, and let incidents such as those at Millwall and West Ham in recent memory, pass by without acting to punish the perpetrators, and send a clear warning to that, and indeed any club, which feels it can ‘gloss over’ the actions of its supporters.

Photos courtesy of (in order): Sporting Life, The Telegraph, Who Ate All The Pies?

Europe in 1989, Middle East in 2011: Has the Iron Curtain fallen to people power once again?

Some years are rightly remembered as being momentous in the history of human existence. 1989 was surely one of these, and judging by the tumultuous events which have swept across a host of countries in the Middle East, long denied the freedom and democratic rights we take for granted, 2011 is set to become another. Hosni Mubarak, Egyptian ruler since 1981, has already fallen amidst an unstoppable display of people power and common desire for reform. Yet we cannot romanticise these protests, which draw natural parallels with the events of 1989 in Eastern and Central Europe, in the light of those whom have already perished at the hands of the mechanisms they are so committed to destroying. In Libya, despite the communication problems brought on as a result of the political struggle there, reports have reached the outside world of between 100 and 300 deaths. The ‘revolution’ in Egypt achieved its aims with a similarly high level of bloodshed, the non-governmental organisation Human Rights Watch (HRW) confirming that 302 people had been killed, not all of these protestors, since unrest broke out on 28 January. Yet for the citizens of Libya, it appears the government of Muammar-al-Qaddafi, commonly referred to in the West as Colonel Gaddafi, is willing to fight on until the end, no matter the consequences. As stated today by the Libyan leader’s son, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi:

“Our spirits are high and the leader, Muammar Gaddafi, is leading the battle in Tripoli and we are behind him, as is the Libyan army.

“We will keep fighting until the last man standing, even to the last woman standing...We will not leave Libya to the Italians or to the Turks...Our spirits are high.

“Our army will be in Libya, and Muammar Gaddafi will be in it until the last moment...We will eradicate them [enemies] all.”

Colonel Gaddafi’s rule in Libya is said to have lasted 41 years and 173 days, since 1 September 1969, a length unthinkable in Western democratic societies, where ten years is considered a long time and, sometimes derogatively and in a tongue-in-cheek manner, suggested to entail some of the hallmarks of dictatorship. Make no mistake about it though, Gaddafi’s rule is the above, and if the army continue to back his increasingly alienated and baseless position as leader of Libya, and critically not of the Libyan people, then his power will remain untouched. Crucial to the collapse of 1989, where regimes long bolstered by the assurance of military assistance from the Soviet Union should internal revolts become too difficult to handle, as applied in the so-called Brezhnev Doctrine in Czechoslovakia in 1968, faced a population unwilling to return to quiet acquiescence, was the change in policy of Mikhail Gorbachev. He would not send troops into Poland and Hungary, thereby hastening the demise of the regimes in these countries and across Central and Eastern Europe. Sadly for the Middle East, there is no monolith ruling over it with an iron grip, relentlessly keeping it in line until the grip is slowly loosened, to be replaced by a flood of change, popular uprisings and the toppling of corrupt, faceless dictators.

The revolt hasn’t merely been confined to Libya and Egypt. Indeed it was Tunisia where the wave of popular revolt began, against the leader of the Republic of Tunisia, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, President since 1987. The protests themselves were sparked in late December following the act of self-immolation by protestor Mohamed Bouazizi. The President was finally ousted on 14 January, following weeks of protest alleged to have been organised primarily through labour unions. Sources state that 219 were killed during the ‘Tunisian Revolution’, as it has come to be referred. Bahrain was the next state to experience major unrest, this time directed against the unelected monarch, head of the Al Khalifa ruling dynasty, Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa. Bahrain is certainly a very different case to the others, being just one of many examples of a ‘rentier state’ in the Arab world, and economically dependent on the substantial revenues derived from the export of natural resources. Unlike the other countries plagued by unrest, Bahrain is an economically successful state, ranked 34th in the world by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for GDP per capita, above Russia and Brazil. Despite the reported human rights abuses in Bahrain, and the lack of democratic values and multi-party politics of the Western World, its citizens have fewer economic reasons for demanding reform. Libyans, ranking 48th, Tunisians 97th and Egyptians 116th, all of whom do not enjoy the substantial welfare state in existence in Bahrain, all benefit the least from the relative successes of their countries.

Indeed the people of Bahrain it appears have reason to celebrate, for after a rather briefer period of unrest than in the other states, and far fewer needless deaths (a reported seven), the King has agreed to enter into a dialogue with the various opposition movements. How the situation will end up is not yet clear, but it may be said that the people of Bahrain have set an example to the rest of the Arab world, along with their fellow protestors in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. Whether any positive, and obviously this is a very subjective term, change will emerge from the events of the year so far remains to be seen. As for the parallels with 1989, it appears that rather than citizens longing for the wealth and freedom of their neighbours, a wave of popular revolution has swept across countries previously symbols of stability in the extreme. With conflicting reports of Colonel Gaddafi having fled Libya and declared himself ready to fight until the end, time will tell as to whether his damaged dictatorship can heal the wounds inflicted on it by a people denied democracy and fairness for over 40 years. The outside world has already renounced its previous ties with the Libyan ruler, just after his own people have done the same. Yet with the armed forces still seemingly fiercely loyal to the crumbling regime, it appears the bloodshed is not over yet.

Photos courtesy of (in order): Left Foot Forward

Football's New Financial Regulations - Has UEFA cured the madness of the January transfer window?

It appears that a new era is dawning for European football, one in which clubs will seemingly no longer be able to operate in financially-unstable manners, and spend colossal sums of foreign money on players who, outside the madness of the January transfer window, would be valued sensibly and accordingly acquirable for reasonable outlay. UEFA, the often-maligned guardian of European competition, namely the Champions League and Europa League, announced earlier this week plans to enforce fresh ‘Licencing and Financial Fair Play Regulations’. Understandably, these announcements need some clarification, given the deliberate vagueness surrounding their title. Essentially free-spending Premier League clubs which have for too long belied financial scrupulousness will be nervously looking to the future after UEFA voted unanimously to adopt a ‘break even requirement’, to be introduced over a period of three financial years (2010/11-2012/13). This means that by the time of the 2013-2014 UEFA competition, clubs will be assessed according to whether or not, in essence, they have lived beyond their means or stuck to a prescribed budget. Yet does this key announcement for the future of the European game, described by UEFA President Michel Platini as an attempt to “put stability and economic common sense back into football”, sound the death knell for the sort of Premier League-led extravagance witnessed over the past few days?

This January transfer window, often a burden and a source of undue pleasure for managers and fans alike, sometimes within the space of 24 hours, has certainly lived up to expectations in terms of the outlay it has produced on footballing talent. Collectively, on just four players, Liverpool, Chelsea and Aston Villa have conspired to spend an astonishing £135 million. Naturally the individuals upon which this monstrous sum has been readily dished out, Luis Suarez, Darren Bent, Fernando Torres and Andy Carroll, have seen their abilities subject to significant price inflation, a naturally-occurring phenomenon during the transfer window, infamous for being a period in which clubs are willing to sacrifice natural fiscal activity for the sake of an assumed short-term advantage. Yet with UEFA’s announcement, has the fun gone out of the silly season which delights and infuriates supporters up and down the country annually? I would have to say it has; for Chelsea’s £50 million signing of Fernando Torres could easily become a phenomenon of the not-so-distant past, with clubs clamouring to reduce expenditure and operate at reasonable levels with at least a modicum of financial responsibility. Naturally for Arsenal the announcement will be of little concern, given that as pointed out by an esteemed journalist a couple of days ago, half of the Gunners’ starting eleven cost less than the silky Spaniard. Yet for clubs such as Manchester City, attempting to break into the top four seemingly by brute force of expenditure and a financial recklessness not witnessed in the Premier League since the early days of Roman Abramovich’s reign at Chelsea, UEFA may just have forced a rethink. Having said that, with a squad as large, young, talented and expensive as City’s already having been assembled, they probably needn’t spend again for another five or six years, not that this dose of common sense will fall on anything other than deaf ears.

When the paltry sum of £30 million was spent during the previous post-Christmas transfer window, analysts were clamouring to point out that the ‘age of austerity’ had finally hit football, up until that point the last bastion of financial insanity in a country and a continent tightening its belts and sheltering from the approaching storm. The claims that clubs such as Chelsea could possibly achieve a financially stable situation in which they would soon be in a position to ‘break even’ was spectacularly dashed just a few days ago, with the monied monoliths of West London announcing spectacular losses of £70 million up until June 2010. Journalists and spectators have also attempted to defy the odds and place Manchester City into this highly unrealistic category of Premier League clubs, claiming that the £200 million-plus shelled out by City’s extremely generous owners could be written off and turned into a profit over the next few years, providing for the existence of substantial Champions League revenue and the increased sponsorship that comes with this particular windfall. Yet despite the unrealistic sound of both Man City and Chelsea’s claims, each had better start trimming the fat and, no offence intended, ‘do a reverse Leeds’ if they wish to remain eligible to qualify for the lucrative fat-cat picnic that is the Champions League. Clubs which fail to adhere to UEFA’s new regulations will be banned from 2015, and whilst cutting back may seem a monumental task in itself, deprived of revenue from Europe’s premier club competition, clubs such as Chelsea, Manchester United and Manchester City would quickly find themselves almost inoperable. Surprisingly enough, it is only Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur who would currently pass through UEFA’s stringent detectors unscathed; all other top five clubs, plus Liverpool, made substantial losses in the previous financial year, and the Merseysiders have done little to reverse this trend. Perhaps the aforementioned clubs are hoping for some change of heart from UEFA, and a relaxation of these deeply inhibitive regulations, but they are unlikely to get it from Michel Platini, whose negative feelings towards English football are well-documented in the domestic press, and for whom financial ‘common sense’, in his words, is a cornerstone of the new European order.

Furthermore it is also worth mentioning that not only the English clubs, so often maligned for their share of the ever-expanding Premier League financial pie, could fall foul of UEFA’s rulebook. Barcelona and Real Madrid, both of whom, particularly the latter, have spent astronomically in the past few years attempting to capture the coveted Champions League crown, are loss-making enterprises. Barcelona in particular announced staggering losses for the previous financial year, and Real’s extravagant and sometimes vulgar level of spending in the previous summer will surely not be a one-off should the requisite success not manifest itself at home and abroad. So it appears as though the tumultuous events of Transfer Deadline Day will soon be cast into the pages of history, to be replaced by an era in which clubs are forced either to recruit players who unlike Andy Carroll haven’t seen their fair market value grossly inflated, or simply work with the squads they currently have. In light of UEFA’s ‘parent-esque’ intervention into the January party, the insolent clubs such as Chelsea and Liverpool have had one last drink, desperate to spend the vast sums of money available to them through television revenues before a new age is ushered in. Only time will tell how this will impact upon European club competition in the long-term, but in the meanwhile it might be pertinent to expect a somewhat less dramatic deadline day, and the egregious spending on Carroll and Torres in England, as well as Kaka and Ronaldo in Spain, to become the hallmarks of a bygone age for Europe’s top clubs.

Photos courtesy of (in order): Zimbio, The Chelsea Blog, Football Pictures

Football Manager - iconic management simulator or fatal timewaster?

It's fair to say that, judging by supporters' more reflective moments in public houses, embittered conversations following egregious home defeats, and the words adorning the pages of the thousands of fanzines across the length and breadth of the country, the vast majority of us believe that, given the opportunity, we could successfully manage our beloved football clubs. So what happens when fans are given the chance to do just that? You get Football Manager, which began life in its current guise in 2005, and has gone on to become the definitive football management simulator. As a patron of the Football Manager series since its conception, I long ago accepted that Football Manager would take precedence over many vital aspects of my life, including university coursework. Yet the series' addictiveness is matched by an unmatched attention to detail and realism. As such it has been revealed that Everton had used the extensive Football Manager database in conjunction with more orthodox techniques in order to scout potential signings and unearth talented youngsters who may have previously gone under the radar. Such a recommendation means the game should surely be sufficient for those of us in less immediate need of discovering a talented 18 year old available for peanuts with a glorious scoring pedigree in the Norwegian Premier League. Football Manager also has another string to its voluptuous bow; longevity. If you can stand the emergence of 'fake' players in order to keep the database of sufficient size once current players have retired, Football Manager is a game that can theoretically be played indefinitely. Personally speaking, on the previous incarnation I reached the year 2022 managing Real Madrid and the game showed no signs of slowing down.

So, you may well be thinking, with such a plethora of positive characteristics, that I would struggle to counter the above recommendation with a warning of any substance or relevance. Well don't speak too soon. Football Manager may be one of the most successful football management simulators, but this success has come at a price for some. Various reports in newspapers and online have, whether apocryphally or not, documented tales of woe including divorce and alienation, resulting from playing the game, branded addictive by many analysts, for too long. The game's 'addictiveness' has been seen to have a detrimental effect on other important aspects of the lives of its patrons, leading to social, family and sometimes even work obligations being ignored in favour of continued play. Football Manager's chief developer, Miles Jacobsen, has taken steps to combat this issue. Installing a clock to show the number of hours played on each game was certainly useful, and is arguably all the creators can do to try and prevent excessive play or 'addiction', which after all is the fault of the gamers themselves. The fact that I am currently playing Football Manager whilst writing this piece means that, even if I were in that way inclined, I will not comment upon others in a manner criticising the number of hours they spend playing the game. During university there is often a tendency to choose relaxation over hard work, and entire days can go by, particularly in first year, where work is entirely ignored, snacks are consumed with alarming regularity, friends fall by the wayside and Football Manager takes precedence.

Therefore, to summarise, as far as I am concerned the debate lies in where exactly the lines are supposed to be drawn. For with the increasing popularity of true-to-life gaming, interactive consoles such as the Wii and X-Box Kinect, and simulators such as The Sims, all of which in different ways provide consistently attractive alternatives to everyday life, will people just decide to live in a digital world rather than face reality? For Shrewsbury Town fans, and I apologise for mentioning your club it was the first in the lower leagues which occurred to me, I suppose there would be more chance of reaching the Premier League on Football Manager than in reality. Yet even more interesting is the game’s huge database. With Everton already having ‘signed-up’ Football Manager two years ago, putting a Premier League seal of approval on Miles Jacobsen’s brainchild, how long until scouting becomes a moribund process and clubs of the calibre of Manchester United are using the FM database to discover the next ‘golden generation’? This then begs the question, how accurate can a game, and we must remember that it is no more than that, actually be? Furthermore, with the hundreds of millions of pounds being generated in sponsorship, commercial opportunities and television rights, is an increasing reliance on the Football Manager series a terrifying proposition, or simply a sign of the times. I’ll let you decide, for I think it’s time to return to my game, and try to keep QPR in the Premier League…

Photos courtesy of (in order): EPL Talk, Pocket Lint

Reality Britain: How long until reality television shows dominate our television scene?

The past decade has seen a sea change in television broadcasting. Shows such as Big Brother, X-Factor, Britain's Got Talent and Strictly Come Dancing have begun to define television as we know it. Whatever side of the debate you consider yourself to occupy, it is almost undeniable that the traditional programmes to which viewers became accustomed in the 1980s and 1990s are gradually being phased out. Time Magazine critic James Poniewozik asserts that, rather than being an anomaly in the televisual field, reality shows are "simply another genre", such as sitcoms or dramas. Indeed there are those, such as Today online contributor Michael Ventre, who believe that 2011 will in fact sound the death knell for reality programming. Big Brother has already fallen by the wayside, fortunately in my view, for over the past ten years it has promoted all that is wrong with society; vanity, undeserved fame, banality, selfishness and egregious self-promotion. Yet X-Factor and Britain's Got Talent, arguably ITV's flagship programmes in its current malaise, are still going strong. Indeed X-Factor, with the significant weight of media mogul Simon Cowell behind it, has come to define the musical, particularly chart, agenda in the United Kingdom with winners and runners-up rarely failing to break through into the 'big-time' and achieve significant commercial success. The major worry would be that original broadcasting is being supplanted across the board, and the programmes that are really valued, creative and memorable, will soon cease to exist in the face of the incessant march of reality television.

As mentioned earlier, some believe that reality television is in fact on its way out, although what form of programming will replace it is unclear at present. In the United States there has been criticism of American Idol and Dancing With The Stars, both of which attract a high proportion of viewers, but perhaps this is merely a sign of the times? Perhaps the public on both sides of the Atlantic have become sick of reality programming, a staple of television schedules for at least a decade. Perhaps what we are seeing is a public looking to the past for a solution to the problems of the present, and potential difficulties of the near future. I for one certainly hope so, for I believe Britain's monumental cultural heritage, of which a large part is owed to the various original, innovative and relevant programmes produced in the United Kingdom over the past half century, rather than the recent influx of cheap to produce, endlessly viable and largely creatively-moribund shows such as X-Factor. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with such programmes, my only complaint is that as time goes on far less energy goes into ensuring original and creative broadcasting, and quality is substituted for financial viability. For where would television in this country be had producers, television companies, executives and creative divisions not taken a chance on shows such as The Office, Only Fools And Horses, Yes Minister and Blackadder? Although perhaps risky at the time, each of the above has achieved significant critical acclaim and an enduring popularity that reality shows often fail to obtain; for most it is more a case of the latter, if only in a somewhat fleeting sense, than the former.

One could argue that what has been happening to our television over the past decade or so is merely an almost-exact reflection of the phenomena which has drastically altered the British music scene. In the early-mid 1990s the chart was far more unpredictable, varying in its winners and losers, and based primarily around artists producing original, creative music that they had written themselves following an extensive period of touring and a variety of attempts to 'make it' in the 'big time'. Whereas nowadays chart music is dominated by mass-produced, heavily advertised music catering primarily to one specific style which more often than not is forced upon the buying public by the various interests that the music companies represent. One could say in recent years, music has become less about art and creativity, and more about art and instant gratification, that is to say, temporary and fleeting chart success. Sadly the same has happened to British television. By no means am I trying to suggest that the 1990s was some sort of 'golden age' in television, although some may argue that the flourishing of British popular music in that particular decade was something out of the ordinary, and indeed rather special. However television appears to be going only one way; in five years’ time, although Michael Ventre vehemently disputes this point of view, I predict that we will have far fewer programmes of the calibre and originality of Peep Show, The Inbetweeners, Outnumbered and Gavin And Stacey, and more shows along the line of X-Factor, television designed to make millions overnight with little creativity involved. Now I certainly do not want to get rid of programmes such as X-Factor and Britain's Got Talent, in fact I must profess to have watched both somewhat regularly. I am merely lamenting the demise of the sitcom, a television genre often subjected to some criticism and under-representation, and the dearth of original programming available to the viewers of today. With the current, and possible future cuts to BBC funding we may be about to say goodbye to a whole host of 'risky' programmes in favour of shows guaranteed to engineer a high proportion of the prime-time audience, that are both commercially viable and sometimes creatively thin, the rest of the time bankrupt of originality.

Photos courtesy of (in order): Bee Hive City, Share TV, The British Comedy Guide

It's snow joke: Winter worries and festive fury, why does the snow always take us by surprise?

The past few days have seen hundreds of flights cancelled, many roads either closed, clogged, or impassable, and the travel plans of millions left in tatters. Suffice to say the conditions have been challenging, extremely so in many cases, with temperatures of -19 degrees a reality for a number of areas across the country. However the frustration of those who, since the beginning of the weekend, have been stranded at Heathrow, an airport accustomed to managing tens of millions of passengers per year, is perfectly understandable. I raise the following question: why does the snow always catch us out, and when will this country finally take the necessary precautions to avoid any repeat of the present disaster. Prime Minister David Cameron today expressed his "frustration" at the current travel problems, but in reality his words will be of little consolation to those who have been trapped, in a manner one particular news programme referred to as akin to 'refugees', in the various terminals of London's airports, particularly Heathrow. The so-called 'weather excuse' is often wheeled out by the transport, particularly the aviation, authorities during such times of travel chaos. But how long will this continue to provide an adequate explanation for such an unprecedented level of disruption?

One could plausibly argue that given the events of recent years, Britain's airport and railway operators, particularly the much maligned British Airports Authority (BAA), should have put in place an appropriate structure to deal with circumstances that were in fact easily anticipated and warned of for a number of weeks by those with the ability of foresight. Yet the failures of the past few days have been a most unimpressive cocktail of short and long-term factors. On the longer term side of the debate, for an airport known to have flown 66 million passengers during the previous year, to not have the necessary snow-clearing facilities to ensure that the runway can be kept as clear as possible during times of intense snowfall, and quickly and effectively cleared following such downpours in order to continue an 'adequate', not even full, level of operations, is outrageous. It seems to me that complacency has long been the order of the day at the busiest airport in the United Kingdom and the European Community. Corners appear to have been cut, and necessary checks and balances to guard against total collapse of flight output seem to be non-existent. The fact that, as revealed earlier today on ITV News, there are no processes in place to rate airports on the manner in which they deal with snow and ice, shows the extent to which the problem has been swept under the carpet and quietly ignored until, of course, the recent debacle.

Yet the worst part of all, for my mind, has been the short-term events which have characterised the passenger misery of the past few days. Passengers and prospective fliers have been provided with almost no information as to whether or not their flights will be going ahead; for those stranded in the terminals one would imagine that such information, however seemingly minor and insignificant, would have been akin to manna from heaven. Yet sadly the response of the authorities and those 'managing' the crisis has simply been to disregard the needs, and concerns, of the troubled and concerned passengers confined to the terminal walls in West London. Furthermore, when one takes into account that it has taken four days, three since the snowfall ended on Saturday, to bring the airport back to even limited capacity - estimated to be around 1/3 - BAA, its requisite staff members and relevant associates should be highly embarrassed. Lessons may have been learnt, but I highly doubt that an aggrieved British public will permit such a frivolous 'learning curve' to repeat itself, or that those who have seen 2010 end on a sour note will pay any regard to pleas for leniency and calm from those who may not have caused this crisis, but have undeniably exaggerated it.

The British transport network has long been a thorn in the side of the plans of millions of Britons throughout the festive period, with extortionate fares, inadequate timetabling, frequent delays and sometimes cancellations anathema to many sick of paying for such an unreliable system. Add snow to this mixture and it becomes positively toxic. One would expect, whether rightly or wrongly and I suggest that it may be a mixture of the two, that should Britain's airports fail to cope with the seasonal weather, the trains and motorways should be able to step into the breach. Alas, for this Christmas at least, it's a case of no such luck. The suspension of the East Coast Main line is by no means the end of the misery. Dozens of train companies across the country have cancelled train services at a time when those attempting to undergo domestic flights are turning to rail travel as an answer to their prayers. Eurostar passengers have been equally affected, being informed that they could experience anything up to an astonishing six-hour wait upon arrival at the St. Pancras Terminal. Southwestern Trains, Arriva Trains Wales, and many services in the North and South-East of England have been severely affected, and are not yet back to capacity.

When you consider the possibility of the High Speed 2 (HS2) rail network being factored into this debate, and the potential for greater disruption becomes monumental unless a frank and full change of attitude takes place amongst those responsible for our transport infrastructure. Roads are always a problem in snow and ice, and few can really complain about constant snowfall stretching grit supplies to breaking point; it is simply the combination of road, rail and air that has so devastated Britons heading home or to visit relatives over a festive period which, let us not forgot, comes just once a year. We can only hope that the authorities get the message, and take on board the message of this simple adage: 'fail to plan and plan to fail'. Whilst nobody is suggesting that the hold-ups, cancellations, and transport collapse have been planned; they certainly appear to have been exaggerated by the inadequate preparations, shortage of necessary equipment, incompetent and unsympathetic 'crisis management’ and failure to take into account the needs of passengers.

Photos courtesy of (in order): Frui, Tree Badger, Reuters, The Telegraph

Festive Football Forecast - Who will be snowed under this Christmas, and who will plow through their rivals to reach the top of the tree?

Scottish football supporters might well be accustomed to having their Christmas and winter schedule decimated by excessive snowfall and adverse weather conditions. However for those of us south of the border the mass postponements which affected 32 fixtures across all four divisions were both unprecedented and unexpected. Only three Premier League fixtures, miraculously including tonight's game at Eastlands, went ahead. Thus the table is currently rather skewed, with Manchester United currently sitting top of the three by two points, following the failure of their neighbours City to capitalise on the weekend's postponements, suffering a shock 2-1 home defeat against Everton. Following tonight's result, United are in a remarkably strong position going into the Christmas period. City will struggle to close the gap going into 2011, facing a tricky trip to Newcastle United on Boxing Day, despite very much winnable home ties against stuttering Aston Villa on 28 December and Blackpool on New Year’s Day. United also face a Christmas period which shouldn't be all too taxing, with Sunderland the visitors on Boxing Day, followed by a jaunt around The Midlands to face Birmingham City and West Bromwich Albion in the space of five days. City's form so far this season has been patchy to say the least, but with Roberto Mancini's side unbeaten in the Premier League since 30 October, and two of three festive fixtures at Eastlands, they cannot be ruled out despite tonight's result. United meanwhile, have been buoyant in recent weeks, the 7-1 thrashing of Blackburn Rovers a consummate mauling which, combined with Chelsea's stuttering recent form, has instilled a sense of belief amongst the United supporters and players alike that they can open a gap at the top once their games-in-hand come around in January. Chelsea and Arsenal are by no means spectators in this title battle; The Gunners indeed are United's closest challengers, but only on goal difference. Chelsea lie a point behind, and the winners of this Monday's colossal showdown at The Emirates will likely emerge from the Christmas period as the main competition for Sir Alex's side during the remainder of the season. United's tendency to up their game in the second half of the season, plus Arsenal's disposition to implode sometime in the final few months of the season, means that Chelsea and Manchester City will need to find some form and quick, to prevent the league leaders running away with things and pressing home their advantage.

Outside the top four positions, the top flight is as open as it has been for a while. Tottenham Hotspur, enjoying a vintage season in European competition, having won their Champions League group against all odds, currently occupy fifth place on 27 points. However with this season's overachievers-so-far Sunderland equal on points and goal difference, and Bolton just a point behind, Harry Redknapp's side must put their European exploits to one side and take advantage of the Christmas period to put some distance between them and their less-illustrious challengers. Spurs have a fairly simple sequence of games between now and 2011; a trip to Aston Villa and a couple of home games against Fulham and Newcastle all that stand between Tottenham and a full festive points haul. Bolton, for their part, have been in exceptional form; Owen Coyle has transformed the Trotters into a side playing football the right way, combining a ruthless determination to succeed with an egalitarian flair that has seen them win plaudits across the footballing spectrum. Sunderland's rise has been rather more inconspicuous, but Saturday's victory against Bolton illustrated the quiet effectiveness with which Steve Bruce and his side have firmly cemented themselves as challengers for a Europa League place. The Trotters will be up against West Bromwich Albion, who themselves have over-achieved under Roberto Di Matteo, on Boxing Day. However away games at Chelsea and Liverpool will provide a far stiffer test of the Terriers' mettle, and they will do well to maintain such a lofty position by 6pm on 1 January. For Sunderland the festive matches shouldn't be quite so troublesome; few supporters will be expecting a victory at Old Trafford on Boxing Day, particularly in light of the ease with which Blackburn were taken apart just a few weeks ago. However with Blackpool and Blackburn themselves visitors to the Stadium Of Light, a veritable fortress where the Black Cats have been unbeaten thus far, Sunderland may well be right on Spurs' coat-tails in a fortnight's time.

Just two points separate the teams from eighth-14th place, and for any of those within these particular parameters, two wins from three over the Christmas period may just be enough to entrench a top-half position. Overachievers Blackpool, Newcastle, Blackburn, Stoke, Everton and West Brom may not face the wrath of their supporters should they fall out of this closely-packed group, but for Liverpool and Aston Villa, ninth and 15th places respectively won't be enough to impress fans used to far higher league placings, and may just cost Roy Hodgson and Gerard Houllier their jobs. As for the final five, particularly bottom of the table West Ham United, it will be anything but a Happy Christmas. Hammers boss Avram Grant was allegedly handed a simple equation recently by the board at Upton Park; win one of the next three games, or face redundancy. Having secured a battling 1-1 draw at Ewood Park against a wasteful Blackburn, Grant may well argue that fans have already seen an improvement. Of course, the alleged 'ultimatum' may simply have been an invention by the press, but the old adage of there being no smoke without fire may well ring true in this scenario as well. Failing to achieve victory in either their trip to Fulham and a home showdown against tonight's heroes Everton, and the Hammers may well have lost likely the most proficient manager they could ever hope to have in such a predicament. For Wolverhampton Wanderers and Mick McCarthy, excuses of misfortune, which are indeed justified, will only wash for a certain amount of time. West Ham, Wolves and Wigan, all of whom have vastly inferior goal differences to the sides above them, face an uphill struggle to dig themselves out of the relegation slush. Fulham's position is almost equally precarious; the West Londoners lie just outside the relegation zone, level on points with third-bottom Wigan, and spared the ignominy of being in the bottom three at Christmas solely by dint of the abysmal goal difference of Roberto Martinez' side. A tricky trip to Stoke City and London Derby at Spurs will be difficult to gain any points from, so the pressure is on for the Cottagers to put another nail in the coffin of West Ham United on Boxing Day. Expect a gritty, determined performance from both sides, and a nervy, yet expectant crowd. One can only hope that even if the Hammers fail to triumph, as I expect them to, the West Ham board keep the faith with Avram Grant as he tries to unite a disparate, underachieving squad, and trim the fat accumulated by his predecessors as well as improve on a lacklustre season to date.

England's second division, The Championship, unlike its more illustrious counterpart, remains unpredictable, exciting and surprisingly resilient against the festive freeze. Just two games failed to go ahead at the weekend, although league leaders Queens Park Rangers will have wished that their trip to Elland Road had fallen victim to the snow and ice. The R's slumped to a dismal 2-0 defeat, Max Gradel scoring twice to condemn Rangers to their second defeat in a row. Things aren't set to get any easier for Neil Warnock's side, despite returning to Loftus Road on Boxing Day. A scorned Swansea City, 1-0 losers against Sheffield United on Saturday, will provide another test of QPR's promotion credentials, which have already been subject to significant doubt by supporters and pundits alike. Cardiff City will be hoping to get their season back on track with a home game against high-flying Coventry City on Boxing Day. Expect the Bluebirds to re-establish themselves as QPR's main challengers over the festive period, with poor home performers Watford and Bristol City unlikely to be capable of coping with a resurgent City side, featuring the attacking weight of Craig Bellamy, Jay Bothroyd, Peter Whittingham and Michael Chopra. Leeds United, meanwhile, who achieved what Cardiff were fundamentally unable to at the weekend, could well reach the summit themselves. Home matches against underachievers Middlesbrough and mid-table Portsmouth are the best Simon Grayson's side could have hoped for going into a 2011 which may just see Leeds reclaim their often exaggerated 'right' to play in the Premier League. Dark horses for the next few games could be Norwich City, who will play two of three festive games at home, one against faltering QPR, Reading, and Hull City, who look to be finding some sort of momentum to drag themselves away from the relegation dogfight. Leicester are another side to watch, with their 3-0 away defeat to Ipswich during Saturday's blizzard in Suffolk likely to be a blip for Sven Goran Eriksson's improving side. Doncaster are also worth a mention; having stopped the rot following a last-gasp comeback victory against Middlesbrough on Friday night, and facing visits from underperforming Ipswich and second-bottom Scunthorpe United, and lying in 11th place, just four points off the play-offs with a game in hand, Sean O'Driscoll's side look set to force themselves into the top six come the New Year. Whatever the results over the next two weeks, the onus is on the bottom four and the top six to ensure that the crucial gap from those above and below them remains. For those in the middle, the time is now to ensure whether it will be a festive flurry, or a case of brand new year, same old form.

Photos courtesy of (in order): Purse And A Glove, Who Ate All The Pies?, Football

World Cup Vote - Has FIFA been exposed for what it is, or simply tried to honestly further the global game?

With a week having passed since FIFA's decision to award the 2018 and 2022 World Cups to Russia and Qatar respectively, the time is ripe to analyse the reasons for this unprecedented decision, and finally settle a debate which has seen FIFA accused of rampant corruption and collusion in bribery. The future of the global game is subject to consistent debate and wildly diverging views; some believe it has been, since the advent of huge television revenues and multi-million pound sponsorship deals, lamentably moving away from its reputation as the sport of the working man to a detached, billionaire's playground and a shameless self-perpetuator of wealth, whilst others merely see the its on-going development as natural and fluid, and merely an example of 'moving with the times'. Whatever side of the debate you find yourself on, there can be absolutely no doubt that the aforementioned conclusion, reached by the panel of FIFA voters on 2 December, has mired the organisation in controversy and resulted in a barrage of criticism being aimed at Sepp Blatter, FIFA's eighth President, who has often been a target for the growing 'goal-line technology' lobby, with the direction in which international football has been going since he took on the role in 1998 always a hotly-contested topic. Many of the various polemics have come from the English tabloid press, for whom FIFA's rejection of England's 2018 Bid has, perhaps rightly, been taken as a personal insult and a slight against the reputation of the country.

Now the English are often seen in a rather negative light overseas, whether this is fair or not, and their reaction to the decision, which was to emphasise the extent to which an 'anti-English' feeling within FIFA hampered England's bid, could be interpreted as a typical reaction and nothing more than sour grapes. Yet I personally do not feel this is a fair assertion. When you look at the core elements of the Russian bid, and the political, economic and social structure of Russian society, they provide an almost-perfect contrast to the central tenets of English socio-economic and political life, and the country's infrastructure? Why therefore, was a nation lacking any adequate, let alone significant or stand-out, stadia and transport infrastructure, able to defeat another whose bid was described as 'technically excellent' and 'low-risk' by FIFA analysts? Here in lies the key point of the debate: should the World Cup be used as a means to further the reach of the global game, at the cost of the passion, history, legacy and supporters who have helped it to expand throughout the world? FIFA clearly believes it ought to be a tool for socio-economic development, as the awarding of the 2022 tournament to Qatar clearly demonstrates; in doing so, one must presume that the organisation feels that by hosting the World Cup a footballing fanbase will simply 'spring up' in the tiny Emirate. However beyond all the romantic rhetoric and promises of a 'better future' the facts appear to have been entirely ignored. Qatar, since 1825, has been ruled by the Al Thani dynasty, in the form of an absolute monarchy. The Emir of Qatar is both the Head of State and of Government.

The story is similar for Russia, the beneficiary of FIFA's generosity for the 2018 tournament. Vladimir Putin, Russian President from 2000-2008 and since Prime Minister under Dmitry Medvedev (2008-present), has a rather ambiguous position in terms of the 'balance of power' at the pinnacle of Russian politics. As somebody who has studied the current Russian political system in some detail, I feel I am not only qualified but disposed to comment upon and, if I can, clarify the situation. Now in theory Russia is a democracy, ruled by an elected President who represents a political party which is part of a wider free, multi-party, pluralistic system. In practice it is rather different. For many international observers believe that, since relinquishing the Presidency in 2008, Vladimir Putin has essentially remained firmly in control of Russia's economic and political direction, which has remained more or less unchanged. Indeed, due to Russian political law stipulating that a President may not serve two consecutive terms, but stating that said person can, should the situation arise, serve an indefinite number of periods as President, that he will return to power in 2012 and remain there until 2028, should he triumph in the popular vote, which has been changed under Medvedev to be held every six years, rather than four. Therefore if you believe the doom-mongerers and often-accurate analysts, there exists in the Russian Federation a situation in which the Head of Government, Mr. Putin, is to all intents and purposes also the Head of State, due to the measure of control he enjoys over Mr. Medvedev, a man who rose to his current political rank solely due to the clientalism and influence of Mr. Putin, to whom Mr. Medvedev owes his career and, rather portentously, his position.

Therefore it may be convincingly and factually argued that both Russia and Qatar boast undemocratic, unrepresentative political systems, in which a single individual or 'clique' enjoys an unquestioned monopoly of power, in spite of any 'democratic legislation' or meaningless assurances which may exist to that effect. Now you might be thinking that I've done both nations a disservice and condemned both without providing sufficient evidence. Well in Russia there is definitely ample evidence to provide for further analysis; United Russia, created in 2008 and the current 'ruling party' in the Russian Federation, is arguably little more than a country-wide mouthpiece for Putin and, should we consider Medvedev to have his own, independent opinion, the President as well. It is backed by the multi-billion pound corporations, which include the likes of Gazprom, from which a significant amount of the support for the Putin-Medvedev 'consensus' comes. Other, truly independent political parties do exist, but are subject to significant repression, suffer from wholly disproportionate representation in the Putin-controlled media, and are often forbidden from campaigning fairly and equitably, with the same freedom afforded to United Russia. Civil society is barely tolerated, let alone allowed to flourish as it is in this country. As with the Soviet period, dissent is rigorously clamped down on, as the 2006 murder of investigative journalist Anna Politkoyskaya will attest to. Whilst state involvement in her murder has never been proven, a significant number of analysts are convinced of, if not its ultimate guilt, it’s almost-certain complicity in the assassination. A free media barely exists in the Russian Federation, and perhaps this is why FIFA chose its bid over that from England; the likelihood of any investigative television programme along the lines of Panorama being allowed to exist, let alone screen a thoroughly anti-FIFA, anti-corruption special a few days before the crucial vote, is inconceivable. Therefore I would argue that FIFA has afforded the World Cup, the highest sporting accolade one can bestow on a nation, in my view, to an intolerant, undemocratic, clientalist, repressive, controlling nation ruled by a 'one-man dictatorship in all but name'.

The news doesn't get any better for the Russians; with an appalling human rights record, their recent history as an independent state blighted by aggressive wars of expansion, destruction and unforgiveable violations of human rights in Chechnya and, more recently, North Ossetia, and huge socio-economic disparity between the state-sponsored 'nouveau-riche' and those struggling below the radar of Mr. Putin, FIFA's reasoning seems less and less justifiable. Add to this the inherent problem of racism in the Russian game, something England managed mercifully to stamp out of football some years ago, and continues to make concerted efforts to prevent, and FIFA seems to have positively betrayed the principles of fairness and equity upon which it is supposedly founded. The egregious treatment of Peter Odemwingie, a Nigerian-Russian winger previously with Lokomotiv Moscow, who was subjected to 'monkey chants' and 'banana jokes' and was afforded absolutely no support from any footballing authority in Russia, and the manner in which he has been able to ply his trade in the English Premier League with West Bromwich Albion without such abuse demonstrates the gulf between the two nations in terms of tolerance and respect. Furthermore the following statement from Oleg Blokhin, the Soviet Union's all-time top goal scorer and both a role-model and a hero for millions of Russian children even nowadays, suggests that such attitudes are indeed as widespread as I fear them to be: "The more Ukrainians that play in the national league, the more examples for the young generation. Let them learn from [Andriy] Shevchenko or Blokhin and not from some Zumba-Bumba whom they took off a tree, gave him two bananas and now he plays in the Ukrainian League. [...] I remember when I played football, if we lost a game, it was not easy to walk the Kiev streets – there were many friends out there who could beat you up for that. But is there any sense in beating up a foreigner? Okay, you beat him up – next thing he does is pack up and go." Sickening, I'm sure you'll agree, and an affront to the progress which has been made, at least in this country, in stamping out such antiquated and hateful attitudes and creating an equal game which can be played by all, without fear of prejudice, racism or any other intolerance.

Qatar, for what it is worth, is hardly a tolerant, democratic state either, certainly not along the lines of those such as Spain, Portugal, Belgium, The Netherlands, and even England. No political parties are allowed to exist, there are no elections, and the ruling party retains power courtesy of the huge revenues derived from the sale of Qatar's extensive natural resources. Furthermore, although some may consider this a 'non-issue', alcohol is legal but only with a permit, somewhat difficult to get hold of during a tournament attended by thousands from across the globe, and forbidden to be drank in public. Whilst Qatar is by no means the most repressive Islamic state in the Middle East, a status which hardly deserves applause, and women are permitted to drive and not kept subservient to quite the same extent as in many of the states bordering the Qatari emirate, FIFA are certainly pushing the boundaries of what constitutes a progressive, democratising, forward-looking state with its awarding of the 2022 World Cup. Yet the main problems with Qatar lie in its almost entire lack of any sort of meaningful infrastructure. In time for 2022 transport networks, entirely new cities, and a daunting array of stadia need to be built; indeed, once they are constructed, most will be located within a sixty-mile radius, with many cities concentrated in one single city or locale. Now from a purely pragmatic point of view, this sounds excellent, with journalists, teams, supporters and other observers being subject to fewer 'travel headaches' than those of this year's tournament in South Africa, for example. However, it does certainly seem that in 2022 a situation will come to exist whereby the 'haves', already enjoying luscious lifestyles in the largest Qatari cities, will be able to enjoy the tournament, whilst the 'have-nots', living in the countryside devoid of the benefits brought to 'the few' by the 'oil boom', will not, thereby perpetuating the sort of inequitable social strata FIFA's rhetoric suggests it wants to remove. It is also worth saying that with so many stadiums and the vast majority of the infrastructure concentrated in a handful of cities, the demands on the emirate's limited accommodation and transport resources will in all likelihood be unlikely to be fulfilled. In a final flurry of common sense I would also like to raise another point; how much of a 'footballing culture' and 'fanbase for the future', presumably only cynically designed to generate even more wealth at the pinnacle of 'our' global game, will be able to be generated by a country with a minuscule population of two million? At least in Russia, a country with a population of 141 million, there is potential for commercial expansion. Although I highly doubt any of this will benefit Russia's many 'little people', who presumably weren't factored into FIFA's 'common sense voting' and the minds of the Russian delegates in Zurich.

Thus I now feel I am able to provide a summary as to why Britain was denied the opportunity to host the 2018 World Cup, which will take place 52 years since the country which invented football last hosted the tournament. Firstly, FIFA has clearly decided to turn away from the democracies of the world such as England, which enjoys a media, despite subject to criticism, outside the control of the state, and a flourishing, vibrant civil society. In this country we don't just sweep corruption under the carpet, as presumably occurs in Russia. The Panorama show was indicative of this fact. England's bid team didn't want the programme to go ahead, and implored the producers to prevent it being aired. I would imagine that the vast majority of hopeful children and adults alike across the length and breadth of the country, would have preferred to be postponed or possibly abandoned altogether. But it wasn't, for in a democratic state you have to value the right of free speech. The recent protests over the Government's decision to raise the current cap on tuition fees provide the starkest contrast possible to the situation in terms of civil society, popular democracy, and free speech in Russia. Protests such as these simply would not be allowed to occur, and in the end FIFA clearly decided that they preferred law and order to freedom of speech and integrity. Secondly it appears that England's already vast array of appropriate stadia, and mass legions of 'football mad' supporters weren't 'appropriate' to host the World Cup. Evidently stadia such as Anfield, Old Trafford, Wembley and Stamford Bridge, despite being perfect in terms of facilities and boasting rich, long legacies of triumph and disaster, were not the image FIFA wished to portray to the world of this 'global game of ours'. Finally I genuinely do believe that England is a name to be scorned around the world. To say, 'we didn't get it because we're English' could be termed an easy and wholly exaggerated solution, but one cannot deny that the lack of consideration given to England's bid, which was commercially, technically and I would argue 'morally' and 'historically' the best, raises questions about the attitude taken towards this country by the FIFA voters.