The dust is just beginning to settle on a week that could forever change the footballing world. The decisions to send the 2018 and 2022 World Cup’s to Russia and Qatar has left a sour taste amongst all the unsuccessful bidders. But was FIFA’s snubbing of bids from England and the USA all part of a contingency conspiracy theory?

Speculation is starting to mount that FIFA declined proposals from England and the USA, in a bid to ensure the two countries with the most impressive footballing infrastructure could be free to host a tournament if one of the upcoming hosts fails to live up to the promises in their bid.

Premier League chairman Richard Scudamore has added further fuel to the rumours. Speaking after learning the true extent of England’s failure in the bidding process, Scudamore said: “What’s gone against us is not having to build 20 new stadia. It almost feels as if we are on standby for when somebody can’t host it. “

While both Russia and Qatar come with obvious risks, it is said to be the 2014 World Cup in Brazil causing FIFA the most concern. The South American nation were awarded the tournament in 2007 but since then progress on the building work of the 12 stadiums has been slow.

But it is the countries infrastructure which is creating real problems. The vast land of Brazil means that air-travel is the only feasible way for visitors to travel between the host cities, but there have been massive delays in the improvement of Brazil’s air travel.

Speaking last week. International Air Transport Association chairman Giovanni Bisignani warned that if Brazil didn’t begin plans to improve its airports then tournament could be a “national embarrassment.”

Bisignani said: “I don’t see much progress and the clock is ticking. We must get all the stakeholders to the table and finalize a plan.” The views were echoed by Brazilian World Cup winning captain Carlos Alberto who was far from happy after waiting seven hours for a flight from Sao Paulo to Rio de Janeiro.

Alberto said: “That can’t happen at the World Cup. It is really shameful what is happening with the airports, our expectations are great. We need to deliver the best World Cup but we have to speed up with the preparations because we are a little slow.”

If FIFA was to pull the plug on Brazil 2014, it would certainly open a door to either England or the USA, who are the only countries that could host a tournament at short notice. It must be said that this is highly unlikely, but the last week has shown just how laughable FIFA is as an organisation and you certainly wouldn’t rule out another conspiracy theory.

On Thursday, England will find out if years of campaigning have been enough to see them announced as the host of the 2018 World Cup. With stiff competition from the likes of Russia and a joint bid from Spain and Portugal, there is plenty of work to be done if England are to host the tournament for the first time since 1966. But if they are successful what impact will the tournament have on the Premier League?

Probably the most visible impact of a successful bid would be an improvement to several Premier League grounds. Sunderland, Aston Villa, Newcastle and Manchester City could all be in line for stadium expansions if the bid is successful, while Liverpool could get help in the development of a new stadium.

There will also be a real improvement in the training facilities of dozens of clubs in England, as they look to be the base for the 31 countries that would arrive in the summer of 2018. This could only be good for the long term development of English football, as players benefit from better facilities.

Long term improvements is something often talked about with World Cup bids, as countries look to promote the ‘Legacy’ that the tournament will create. In many ways English football is still benefiting from the legacy created from Euro 96. This was the tournament when England fans were finally able to portray a non aggressive image to the world, after years of association with hooliganism.

A similar legacy would be a massive boost to Premier League football and could really boost some of the dwindling attendances we see in the league. A World Cup would generate massive interest in the game, and which could only boost the numbers of fans who attend matches. This in turn could help in attracting more of the world’s best players to the Premier League as they look to be part of the buzz surrounding football in England.

So the advantages to the Premier League are there, but in reality England is really facing a struggle to persuade the FIFA delegates that they are the best option to host the tournament, and if England do lose out could this have a detrimental effect on the league?

In my opinion no, because in many ways I think none of us will be particularly surprised if the England bid is unsuccessful. I don’t think the league needs England to host the World Cup, it would be nice if it happened, but the Premier League will cope perfectly well if FIFA send the World Cup to Russia for example.

What do you think? Will the 2018 World Cup be hosted by England? If so would it change the Premier League in anyway?

The world football governing body seems to have removed the sleep from their eyes, poured themselves a fresh cup of coffee, and in a shocking turn of events, looks to be attempting some ‘governing’ as they’ve recently stated they’ll allow national associations the use of video footage when it comes to punishing diving and simulation.

In a statement released to the press recently, a FIFA spokesperson used clamorous phrases to describe their intent such as, “serious sanction”, “stamp out”, “deterrent”, and “right wrongs”, all pretty determined terminology being thrown around from the federation once deemed inept at making the big decisions needed for the betterment of the game.

In this somewhat welcoming turn of events, FIFA has changed their stance on the controversial topic from just a few years ago when the Scottish FA approached FIFA with a proposal to use video evidence for these such circumstances. Scotland’s proposal was then turned down on the basis that it was against the existing rules of football. Credit to FIFA though who’ve now allowed the Australian Federation to punish two players, Perth Glory striker Michael Baird and Central Coast midfielder Patricio Perez, and have subsequently banned them for two matches for simulation and gaining penalties.

These new developments in the use of video technology go against article 79 of the official FIFA disciplinary code which states that the disciplinary decisions taken by the ref on the field of play during a match are final. If you connect the dots, any such occurance or violation spotted by video replay after the ending of a match and then punished for would be against FIFA’s code. An interesting and progressive step forward by FIFA.

As it pertains to the Aussies, the Australian national association has cited UEFA’s stance on former Arsenal striker Eduardo in a Champions League qualifier against Celtic in 2009 as precedence for the infraction. Eduardo’s dive to win a penalty in real time was difficult to catch in the heat of the moment. Yet video replays blatantly proved Celtic keeper Artur Boruc avoided all contact with Eduardo who went to ground to deceive the referee.

In this instance of Arsenal v Celtic, the charge against Eduardo was based on Article 10 paragraph 1c of the UEFA disciplinary regulations which states that players can be suspended for purposely trying to deceive a match official in attempts to make said official make an incorrect decision.

In the Eduardo example and now in the case of the Australian club players, FIFA have made the right decision and an important step forward. Football fans will still want to see progress made in goal-line technology and other aspects of the game that will benefit its overall appearance across the world, but for now, FIFA have taken a step in the right direction.

Sorry traditionalists, but it’s time for FIFA to abandon the Third Place Play-Off Game at future World Cup tournaments.

The concept of pitting the two losing semi-finalists against each other to determine who gets the bronze medal is an antiquated idea. Not only is it an idea from the past that has long outlived its use, but it’s also a waste of time for everyone involved from the players – who don’t want to get injured and don’t really care about winning – to the fans – who are not really interested in the game – and to FIFA, who only presumably carry on the tradition in hopes of carving out more revenue to add to their stockpile of cash.

In the eight consecutive World Cup tournaments I’ve watched since 1978, I’ve only watched the Third Place Play-Off Game approximately two to three times. Once was out of pure boredom when there was nothing else on television. Another time was out of curiosity. Even when England played in the Third Place Final game in 1990, I decided not to watch the game because it’s completely meaningless. I mean, does anyone remember who were the third place teams in the recent World Cup tournaments? Does anyone even care?

If the Third Place Final game does serve any purpose, it’s a way for countries to thank their supporters for cheering them on in the World Cup. And for the fans to thank their players. But that could easily be done on a victory bus tour throughout the country’s capital city.

In the competitive landscape of club football, the last thing a world-class player wants to do is to play another meaningless game. After exiting from the World Cup, the players should be sent home so they have time to relax and recover before their club season starts again. They don’t need to play one more game where they could get injured or worn out.

Sunday’s refereeing blunders, following the many glaring group stage errors, have reignited a debate over changing the sport’s rules. Some favor video replay, some favor an additional referee who would only monitor each goal area, while others would prefer a sensor-system for goals similar to that used in hockey. Of all the ideas, the addition of another referee seems to have the most realistic chance as it has already been implemented on an experimental basis in competitions like this past season’s Europa League.

Soccer is by far the most popular sport in the world. But there are still two massive continents in this world (Asia and North America) as well as other regions where the sport could be much more popular and where the populations are burgeoning.

However, FIFA continues to make cataclysmic mistakes that severely ruin the chances of new sports fans being attracted to the sport of soccer. The cataclysmic and fundamental mistakes focus on the most important part of the game: fairness. If there is no justice in this sport, then it is poisoned and soccer fans, no matter what country they support, will feel cheated. Not because their team lost, but because a mistake was made. And that ruins the very heart of soccer.

Some of you may feel I’m bitter because England had a perfectly decent goal disallowed. And the United States had two. That isn’t the reason why I’m writing this article (not to count the numerous other blatant mistakes in this tournament; Mexico must feel cheated too, just as one other example). Instead, I’m writing this editorial because I believe that the fundamental essence of soccer is broken. The laws of the game.

When sports fans who are not soccer fans but who are trying to give the game a chance during the World Cup come up to me, we often have a discussion that’s based on common sense. Typical questions come them such as “Why doesn’t FIFA allow video technology or add assistant referees behind the goal?” and “Why don’t referees crack down harder on players who are taking fake dives?”

Sadly, it’s very difficult to answer those questions without me throwing up my hands and saying that FIFA refuses to budge on their archaic beliefs. So when casual American soccer fans hear this, they become disillusioned with the sport because (1) it seems that there is no solution coming, (2) the sport is unfair when controversial incidents ruin a game, and (3) it doesn’t make any sense.

While I love the sport of soccer just as much as the most passionate fans do, I can completely understand why soccer isn’t as big as it could be in the United States. As long as FIFA continues to live in the dark ages, soccer will never be as big as it could be in the States.

On top of all of that, FIFA is censoring its own content on its website. After the USA v Slovenia game, the FIFA.com website conveniently didn’t feature any video of the disallowed Maurice Edu goal. And now we learn that FIFA has similarly been up to their old tricks by covering up its mistakes from the England versus Germany game.

The litany of cataclysmic mistakes that FIFA has made over the decades is extremely long. While I don’t expect to see many changes off the field, FIFA needs to understand that changes need to be made on it. At the heart of this is the very essence of soccer. The sport will always be popular, but it could be far more popular if only FIFA made it more fair.

UPDATE: FIFA has decided that it will censor TV replays from being shown within stadiums in the World Cup after Argentina’s disputed first goal fueled arguments on the pitch, according to ESPN Soccernet.

FIFA spokesman Nicolas Maingot said Monday that replaying the incident was “a clear mistake.” ”This will be corrected and we will have a closer look into that,” Maingot told a news conference Monday. “We will work on this and be a bit more, I would say, tight on this for the games to be played.”

Ladies and gentlemen, this is even more evidence of how FIFA is trying to keep control and power to prevent people from seeing the truth. It’s time for FIFA to change, and the change has to happen at the top.

I appeared on a CBC TV news program in Canada Monday night and was asked to defend the theatrics of soccer. The diving and the cheating that are so woven into the fabric of soccer and are most evident to the public when the World Cup takes center stage every four years. To be fair, the diving and cheating is indefensible other than the fact that this is what countries often do to gain a edge in soccer. And oftentimes a slight edge is all it takes to win a game.

In the past few days, I’ve spoken to many North Americans who have enjoyed the World Cup but would be much more interested in the sport if the cheating and diving could be eradicated from the game. And they’re absolutely correct. The diving that we’ve seen by footballers has been disgusting such as Italy’s Daniele De Rossi (to win the penalty against New Zealand), Portugal’s Cristiano Ronaldo (to win free kicks in dangerous places on the pitch against Ivory Coast), Chile’s Jorge Valdivia (who received a yellow card Monday for diving to try to win a penalty), Ivory Coast’s Fadel Keita (who charged at Kaka on purpose to draw a foul, which ended up being a second yellow for Kaka and he was sent off), etc.

Several people I speak to say that they would love the sport if only the diving and cheating could be eliminated. They blame the referees for not seeing the fouls. They blame the players for faking and cheating. I blame FIFA for not being strong enough. Here’s why:

The referees are at a disadvantage. We get to see every controversial incident on replay as well as from different camera angles (including overhead cameras at times). Plus, we see the incident in slow-motion and we can watch it over and over again in a couple of minutes while the referee and his assistant referees are handicapped by only seeing it once without the aid of TV replays. When we as the TV viewer have so much more evidence at our fingertips, how can we expect the referee to make a fair and accurate result unless he sees the same things we see? Simply put, FIFA needs to introduce video technology to the modern sport of soccer.

FIFA has so far not introduced the chip technology in the ball and the addition of two assistant referees behind goals to help referees in World Cup matches. They’ve also resisted introducing video technology. The reason they are so archaic when it comes to the question of introducing technology is because they’re fearful of losing control and power. Once the decisions are made by people with video monitors, the balance of power and authority has shifted from the referees to a man in a TV studio or press box. Getting a decision correct with the aid of video technology should be the way FIFA is heading, but it undermines their authority and it undermines the authority of the referee.

FIFA wants to maintain as much control as possible. The best example of this was the controversial incident involving referee Koman Coulibaly who disallowed USA’s third goal against Slovenia. After the incident happened, no one knew what the call was. Was it offside, or was it pushing? As is FIFA’s policy, the referee didn’t conduct a post-match interview to explain his decision. And there was no word from FIFA regarding what really happened. This was on Friday. Over the weekend when the video highlights were added to the FIFA.com website, all evidence of the controversial incident was not included in the video highlights section. All we knew that FIFA was going to make a statement on Monday. So, for 3-4 agonizing days, FIFA said nothing until now when they announced that Koman Coulibaly would not be refereeing any more matches in the World Cup. And what did the head of referees think of their performance so far? “We are very, very satisfied with the performance of the referees,” Jose-Marcia Garcia-Aranda, head of refereeing for FIFA, said Monday.

FIFA is walking a tightrope. I’m convinced that between now and the final a very controversial incident will happen again and a referee will make an incorrect decision which will lead to a country being knocked out of the tournament and injustice being served. This is the sort of thing that turns fans off soccer. It can be corrected, but FIFA is too stubborn and too protective of the power they maintain to let anything go. Unfortunately it’s going to take a controversial incident that will get people incensed to encourage FIFA to change. And even then, FIFA will only change on their own time and when they feel like it.

Bottom line, FIFA needs to be more transparent and needs to be seen as doing everything they can to make the game fair. They also need to stamp out cheating and allow referees to come down hard on players who conduct that behavior. For the sake of soccer, let’s hope FIFA does something after this World Cup to improve the game.

FIFA, what are you doing?

With a global population that is so used to the quality of the Premier League coverage on television, it’s ridiculous that FIFA’s TV replays are so poor. How many times in this tournament have we already been frustrated with the lack of TV replays after crucial incidents? Even though the tournament is just a few days old, it happened again today after Miroslav Klose’s horrible miss in front of goal in the first half against Australia. And it’s happened in several of the other games where we, as TV viewers, have to wait a few agonizing minutes before a replay of the incident is shown.

On top of that, it seems that FIFA is either using less cameras than a typical Premier League match or they’re not using the different cameras as well as they should. The perfect example of this was the offside decision in the game between Mexico and South Africa. There was a replay, but the camera angle was not impressive. And we longed to see a different angle to make our decision, as TV viewers, easier.

It’s almost as if FIFA doesn’t have a clue. Or, more likely, that the production crew working on the games are nowhere near the level of what we’re accustomed to seeing in the Premier League. The shame of the matter is that the TV networks around the world are handicapped by FIFA’s international feed. TV networks, such as ESPN, are not in control of the TV feed and have to rely on FIFA to provide the best possible experience. I’ve lost count how many times so far this tournament when I’ve been screaming at the TV set because of either poor production or an amateurish camera angle.

For a tournament of this calibre, it’s crucial that FIFA delivers a quality product on television. So far, their performance – much like England’s – has been severely lacking.

As the 2010 World Cup approaches like a runaway train down a slick international track, a mob of detractors and naysayers are queuing up a mile long to have their say against the legitimacy of soccer in the USA and across the world. At times, the very purpose and existence of the World Cup is unknown to naive and uneducated Americans (yes, believe it or not, there are unsuspecting Americans who know nothing of what this tournament even is).

Since we all know football fans and us at EPL Talk aren’t ones to go quietly into the night, here are some useful statistics you can arm yourself with when encountering the unbelievers and the unconvinced.

According to the official FIFA site:

• FACT: Just under a total cumulative audience of 27 billion (26.29) football fans world wide viewed the 2006 World Cup which was close to equal to that of the ’98 tournament hosted in France. When the tournament was held on the continent of Asia in 2002, the numbers were just slightly lower at a TV audience of 26.4 billion. A lot of people are watching the World Cup.

Some detractors may scoff at you when you throw world-wide viewing figures at them. They’ll probably say something along the lines of, “Sure, the rest of the world cares about soccer, but we don’t.” To that judgmental and blanketed statement, you could reply, “Not true, my close-minded friend.” Because in fact, and according to Infront Sports & Media:

• FACT: In the States, the Argentina-Mexico match during the 2006 World Cup was the single most watched sports telecast in the history of US Spanish-language television, some 6.7 million viewers.
• FACT: According to Reuters, the average match during the 2006 World Cup gained 2.6 million viewers per match which was an increase of 65% in viewership when compared to the 2002 tournament. Unequivocal proof that the World Cup is not only watched, but is relevant programing that is growing at a more than healthy rate.
• FACT: More people world wide care about the World Cup Final than the Super Bowl. The 2006 Final between Italy and France was viewed by some 260 million people while the Super Bowl was viewed by 98 million — and 92 million of those were US viewers. This great stat puts into perspective the power of the World Cup when compared to the Super Bowl – which in many an Americans eyes, is the be all and end all of sporting events.

Detractors still may point out the fact that the US National team isn’t that good and that’s why people don’t care about the World Cup. Although they’ve yet to win the Cup and failed to progress out of their group in 2006, the USA may not be that far away from seriously competing on a global scale. First off, again according to FIFA:

• FACT: The US is the country with the second most people who play soccer in a year. About 24 million Americans play soccer which is just behind China’s 26 million. Sure, many of those 24 million are children and teenagers who are raised in youth soccer and recreational leagues. However, with a talent pool that large to pick from when those same youth age to more competitive levels, the US could in fact have a clear cut advantage. In fact, soccer is the fastest rising sport in the United States. Which leads us to:

Many readers of EPL Talk have heard of or read Simon Kuper’s recent book Soccernomics. In it, Kuper states that the balance of power from traditional European nations could very well be shifting in the near future based on three factors – population, wealth and experience.

The United States, China and India may soon be the benefactors of these shifting variables if Kuper is to be believed, and I must say, the guy is pretty smart. Kuper, who is in fact a realist, in a recent interview with the New York Times cites the lack of great coaching in America as a potential downfall yet clearly states a path to success for the US and others to potentially emerge as new world powers:

“Some people take the view that the U.S. needs an American coach. I don’t think that’s correct. The best coaching week in and week out is in Western Europe, and the U.S. needs to adopt the best practices. And if you want to win, send all your best players to play in Europe and hire all your coaches from Europe.”

So what’s to be discerned from all that?

Some of the top minds in world football are taking America seriously when it comes to the potential of this nation in the future of International competitions. This is the ammunition you can use to load your soccer-loving guns with and aim towards the haters. The States need only to continue on the path they’re on as their ever-increasing talent pool, wealth and experience grow to potentially be unmatched by current world powers.

I’ll be excited to see the staggering television viewership numbers for US audiences when the 2010 World Cup wraps later this summer. If trends seen in recent tournaments continue, audiences will be bursting at the seems in July and will likely overflow into MLS and other popular leagues throughout Europe. One can easily see the snowball effect that will occur when young kids take to the pitches of their local youth leagues emulating their American heroes who play abroad and hope to one day raise the World Cup trophy themselves.

Good luck in fighting the good fight.

Contact Jesse on Twitter @JesseChula

So you may now recognise him as the head of U.E.F.A. and the man that moved the Champions League from a Wednesday night to a Saturday night. What you may not know is that Platini, for 3 or 4 years, was the best player in the world. A fabulous midfield play-maker of the highest level, Platini could destroy teams on his own when he was in the mood. The French side of the early 1980′s was a fabulous flowing football machine that perhaps should have won a World Cup but for one problem. West Germany.

Both in 1982 and 1986, France got to the semi-finals of the World Cup and both times they failed to get past West Germany. In between those semi-final heartbreaks, the French had won Euro 84 on home soil and were one of the best sides in the world. Platini’s artistry on the ball saw his country achieve heights they hadn’t matched for nearly 50 years but they fell short when it really mattered. During this period the French midfield were known as the “magic square”.

The only real issue the French had was the lack of a top quality striker and the teams tactics were designed to allow Platini to switch from midfield play-maker to centre forward with ease. It seems odd these days, but it sometimes falls that a country simply miss a player of real ability in a particular position for years. England had problems with both full back positions in the last few years but it was probably the lack of a top quality striker that held the French back on the world stage.

Of course, psychologically, West Germany had the Indian sign over the French especially after the horrific Schumacher challenge on Patrick Battison in the 1982 semi-final and whilst they were 3-1 up in that game, in 1986, the Germans never let them have a sniff at goal and won 2-0. Platini would join the ranks of players who never managed to win the World Cup despite being probably the best player in the world and is also in a select band of players that scored in 3 different World Cups, 1978, 1982 and 1986.

Platini was such a beautiful player, he never looked rushed whenever he was in possession. World Class players always seem to have so much time on the ball, but that’s what separates them from the rest. They just have that something else that allows them to achieve more than their contemporaries. Platini, for a midfielder scored so many goals and is currently France’s second highest international goalscorer, with 41 which he looks likely to hang on to for some considerable time.

His club career as well saw him leave the confines of the French League, after playing with AS Nancy and St. Etienne, to join Juventus in 1982 and he continued to deliver excellence after a difficult first 5 months in Italy. Playing in tandem with the Polish maestro Zbigniew Boniek who also joined the same year, Juventus were a force of football throughout the mid-1980′s. Under a youthful Giovanni Trapattoni, Juventus challenged for titles both at home and abroad, all built on the abilities of Platini.

Ironically, when Zidane retired immediately after the 2006 World Cup, it reminded me of when Platini bowed out in 1987, still only 32. No fuss, no real reasons, they’d just had enough of the game. Yet for the last 15 years, Platini has climbed the ladder in Eurpean football since being involved in running the 1998 World Cup and has been head of UEFA for 3 years now. From the footballing king of Europe in the 1980′s to the ruler of European football is some ride, but Platini never turned away from hard-work and dedication. A true World Cup legend of the modern age.

Please leave me your comments below or find me on twitter: http://www.twitter.com/paulbestall