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.

Well, you can’t blame them for trying, two weeks after that hand ball incident and FIFA and UEFA being as patronising as possible, the Football Association of Ireland have asked to be included in the World Cup draw on Friday as a 33rd team.I’ve just had the misfortune of sitting through a Sepp Blatter press conference, which saw a bunch of smug and arrogant bureaucrats laugh at Ireland’s suggestions. Quite what was so funny about it and Blatter’s excuse that Costa Rica would also want to go simply makes them look out of touch from reality.

He then decided to mention that Henry’s family had received death threats. Quite what that had to do with Irelands request wasn’t clear, but the message was. Ireland haven’t a prayer against this cartel. I’m struggling to understand what’s so funny about FIFA’s cowardice in dealing with this situation in an adult manner. An organisation that is run by autocratic and very undemocratic voting procedures seems adamant to cling to the past as long as it possibly can. By continually refusing to look at the bigger picture here, which has seen FIFA’s standing fall even lower than most people thought possible, they are beginning to resemble dinosaurs.

This continual defence of “We can’t introduce video technology” is fast losing any semblance of reality. Football is now the only major sport which will not allow video replays to decide incidents in play. Cricket, NFL, Rugby League and Rugby Union all now use the technology available to them to assist in supporting the match officials. How many mistakes must be brushed under as “human error” before Blatter and his cronies get the message. The match officials need help and only video technology can do it to the level required.

The old argument about the game being able to be played from top to bottom of the football tree with the same set up up is beyond pointless now. Top level football bares absolutely no comparison with Sunday morning football anymore. The balls, boots, pitches, officials, diets, goalkeepers gloves even the half time refueling are all miles apart now. When such matters as World Cup qualification are on the line, especially when accusations of bias abound, video technology allows the officials postion to be strengthened not weakened.

The other argument of slowing the game down is also pointless. Ireland’s protestations over Henry’s cheating took over 3 minutes to settle down. Are you telling me it would take 3 minutes for the replay to prove Henry handled it twice? Of course it wouldn’t. People say that it’s decisions like this that make the game what it is today and we need things to talk about. What an idiotic argument, we live in the 21st century, if anything it’s incidents like the Henry incident that can do untold damage to the game. It makes fans like me think whats the point when blatant cheating can go unpunished.

By refusing to even consider the possibility of bringing football into the 1980′s never mind the 21st century, Sepp Blatter and his self protecting friends are pouring scorn on the beautiful game. The dodgy European seedings, constant slating of English sides, refusal to accept video technology and the obvious fact that South Africa will be given the easiest group in Friday’s World Cup seedings show that FIFA is only interested in paying lip service to fair play and its place in the modern world. The reality is that FIFA will always protect its favourite countries over teams such as Ireland, Costa Rica and Turkey, surrounding itself with useless bureaucrats who only care about themselves and stuff the fans and football.

Yesterday, I considered the question of the name of our sport, football vs soccer. Today I jump on another question regarding the purity of the beautiful game: should we implement live video review? Please use the comment section to weigh in on this issue.

If I ever got dragged to a birthday party for FIFA President Sepp Blatter and was forced to stand up and say something nice about the guest of honor, the best I could probably muster is:

He’s got the coolest name in football after Titi Camara.

That’s wracking my brain under pressure to come up with a pleasantry for world football’s most powerfully controversial figure.

From pushing his absurd “home grown” rule where sides would need to field 6 domestic players in a starting line-up to suggesting that women’s football would be more popular if the players wore tighter shorts… From his labeling of Cristiano Ronaldo as “a slave” when Manchester United held onto him last summer to allegations that his 1998 election was rigged… Blatter will forever be known for doing and saying things that are outrageous and absurd.

But lo and behold, for once, he’s done something reasonable, something I actually agree with. Maybe I can say something nice at that party after all.

After last week’s Confederations Cup controversy over Howard Webb’s video-influenced penalty decision (described in more detail here by EPL Talk’s Rory Tevlin), Blatter announced that pitchside television monitors will be banned at international matches. Or at least turned so the fourth official cannot see them.

Banned, turned, switched over to Gordon Ramsay’s F Word: it doesn’t particularly matter. The important thing is FIFA avoid live video review in football at all costs.

There are those who say: But, look! It worked!

Supposedly, the fourth official saw the handball on the television monitor. He told Howard Webb ab0ut it. Webb had already given the corner kick, but now changed the call to penalty kick. Brazil converted and won it 4-3. So the call had been wrong. Webb corrected himself. Scant time was lost.

The main problem with video review in other sports is the stoppage it causes in play. Professional American football may be the worst perpetrator. The stoppage for video review is one of the many tools the NFL uses to keep a hold of the viewer for a good four hours. The officials will stop play to review close calls. And the coaches are each given a flag to toss on the pitch if they want to ask for a review. Mind-boggling considering the sport is an offspring of concise, 80-minute Rugby.

Don’t take this (or my previous article) as an attack on American football. It’s a wonderful sport. But the action comes in short bursts between time-outs, team changes and a steady helping of commercial breaks. If futbal football and Rugby football are great feasts, than American football is snacking between meals.

And now, baseball has sneaked video review into the mix! Only for limited use, they say. But it already has the officials taking time from game play to watch a video. “Sometimes it takes longer for the manager to get kicked out of the game,” said Dioner Navarro, glowing over the new procedure after catching during the first play that utilized video replay. Yes, Dioner, but at least a manager ejection is part of the action of a baseball game. The spectators have something thrilling to watch. Have you really stopped the game? I’m certainly not suggesting FIFA do away with ejections!

My fear is, with video replay, the MLB have opened the door for further stoppage. And there are those who would have FIFA do the same.

The argument, for now, is that Webb’s “use” of video review didn’t cause any stoppage because the monitor near the fourth official was a live feed. The use of it to overturn a decision was rapid and correct. But once we open that avenue, we are at risk for taking the concept to a debilitating extreme. What happens when we stumble across calls that are not so easy to review in haste. Soon we are stopping the match to consider the replay. In a game full of nuance, it will be tempting to use replay more frequently than we intend. Stoppage time piles up and our precious 90 minute time limit is obliterated. Or what happens when we decide the fourth official needs more information to make this work. We give him multiple monitors to cover all the off-the-ball action. Is he watching the television or the match? He’ll be removed from procedings. He may as well watch from home with his headset on.

The thing is we don’t need live video review. Officiating has always been and will always be fallible because the referees are human. But as long as they are equally human in both directions, the game is fair enough. The missed calls are something we all have to deal with. And no amount of technology will ever remove all the fallibility from officiating.

I use the term live video review in this piece because I am not opposed to post-match video review. Reversing incorrect bookings, discovering serial mistakes, or post-match punishment of players for bad tackles and dives could all be useful. To find the problems and correct them off the pitch won’t take from match play and could help officials learn from past mistakes while discouraging diving and dangerous fouls.

Live video review, though, is a road FIFA should never go down. Just play the game. Other sports should look to football, Rugby and any other sport that works hard to keep things moving. Video replay is an ill not a boon. FIFA must keep the door shut on it.

So for now, Mr Blatter, I applaud you, quietly, for turning the television around. A minor good decision that will surely, in the long view, be drowned in your sea of controversy. But at least I’ll have something nice to say on your birthday.

Tomorrow: do we expect too much from our International football?

So we have another Premier League footballer in trouble with the law. Chelsea defender Ashley Cole early Thursday morning decided after a night out doing charity work, that he would decide to have a little too much booze and then get into a one sided yelling match with the police. The police won when they arrested him on drunk and disorderly, letting him go after only paying an eighty pound fine.

So what does Chelsea do here? According to Chelsea’s club rules, they can fine up to two weeks wages (in Ashley Cole’s case, a nice sum of 164,000). The Times is reporting he’s been fined the max, The Sun though is saying Ashley Cole is going to be let off the hook because Hiddink doesn’t want to make an example of Cole.

The eighty pound fine from the police was probably paid in petty cash from Cole’s pocket. With the FA Cup on Saturday, Ashely wasn’t going to play. What does that mean? Well it means, depending on the source you want to believe in, Ashley Cole got away with only paying eighty quid. Maybe Fabio Capello for punishment could keep him out of the England squad for a while. Then again, that might not be punishment for someone on 82,000 a week.

The other big story involves sale talks gone bad with regards to Liverpool. It would appear that the 500 million pound price tag put on the club by Hicks and Gillett is just a little too high. High enough that the talks have come to a screeching halt.

Considering the circumstances right now, I tend to agree with the Kuwait group. The economy is atrocious, and the two co-owners don’t exactly see eye to eye. If there was any big club where you could pull off a low-ball offer, right now Liverpool is it.

So what should Liverpool go for? In this situation, I don’t see the club being sold for a penny over 350 million pounds. At that price, don’t expect the club being sold anytime soon.

Other Stories
Can Everton please catch a break? The latest player out the rest of the season is Victor Anichebe. He’ll be undergoing exploratory surgery on his right knee.

Sepp Blatter has opened his mouth again. After claiming the strength of the Premier League is damaging other domestic leagues, Blatter then stated that he has Sir Alex’s support of the 6+5 rule. I wonder if Ferguson will confirm that in public, because I haven’t seen it.

Friday is judgment day for Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson. He’ll find out from an Icelandic court if he has more time to sell West Ham United. Even then, June would be the next deadline. The problem will be finding someone who will pay 200 million for the club. Considering the situation Gudmundsson is in, he’ll be lucky to get 75.

Mark Hughes is warning Man City’s players to qualify for Europe…or else. Or else what Hughes, you’re looking for a new club while City’s owners eye up Arsene Wenger? While we know Wenger isn’t going to leave Arsenal for Manchester City, it did make Cesc Fabregas over react by saying he’d quit Arsenal if Wenger left.

Well the Stuart Attwell fallout has begun. This weekend he’ll be the fourth official between Bury and Rochdale in League Two. He’s also facing the ire of columnist. Nick Szczepanik feels that Attwell’s rapid rise has set him up for a big fall. Paul Wilson asks if Attwell is the worst referee in Premier League history?

And finally, Richard Scudamore insists that the 39th game overseas will happen. Just shut up about it please! This is one of those ideas that is fine on paper, but horrific in execution.

So Arsenal’s half-year finances are out and in all fairness, for being in a recession, they did pretty damn good. When you generate more match day revenue (an increase of 3.3 million to 44.4 million pounds), more television revenue (an increase of 4.5 million to 28.9 million pounds), and end up with a bigger pre-tax profit (increase of 4.5 million to 24.5 million pounds), you simply have to stand back and applaud. A major factor in this would be the total amount spent in the transfer market, a profit of 8 million pounds.

If there is anything to worry about, the finances of the Highbury Square development are a small cause for concern. It just isn’t the big deal that the English media are making it out to be. Here’s what we do know: the 135 million pound loan is due in 14 months time. Thanks to the economy, the property hasn’t sold in the manner Arsenal anticipated. While there is still time for the economy to turn around and for this to be a story about nothing, Arsenal have smartly started preliminary talks with Barclays, RBS and the Bank of Ireland about extending the loan payment. That alone has them one step ahead of the eight ball.

Let us not forget that historically, finances for the next six months usually end up higher than the six months that are being reported. With the Champions League TV revenue added in, and gates continuing to be strong, Arsenal look set to have one hell of a financial year.

The other big story had to just make Sepp Blatter’s day. Then again, when FIFA commissions a report from the Institute of European Affairs, you just had to figure they were going to get what they wanted to hear.

In a nutshell, this INEA report simply states that FIFA’s six plus five rule that has already been passed does not violate any European Union law. When I see quotes like “We took no instructions from FIFA. INEA accepted this commission on condition that our requirements of complete independence were met”, it tells me that there is a serious possibility that there was something exchanged in order for FIFA to come out looking good here.

The European Union has yet to get in on this act. Expect them to shortly. When they do, it’s going to be very interesting to see who ends up winning this war. Something tells me the European Union will be the ones that come out smelling like a rose.

Other Stories
I’m sure this is not what Blackburn wanted to see coming out of their FA Cup defeat to Coventry City…an allegation that Jason Roberts hit a 17 year old Coventry fan.

Salamon Kalou has expressed his desire to play for Arsenal and has admitted he will consider his Chelsea future at the  end of the season. So instead of fighting to become a regular Chelsea starter, you just want to head off to Arsenal based on one interview Wenger did?

How serious are Hull City at getting out of their slump? Recalling Dean Windass is a possibility.

And finally, what do Sheffield United feel is owed to them by the Premier League thanks to the Carlos Tevez affair? If you guessed 45.5 million pounds, you win the grand prize.

FIFA recently approved the “6+5 rule” in a 155-5 vote among member nations.  The rule would mandate that clubs field at least six players from the nation in which they play.  By targeting wealthy clubs, particularly English ones, buying foreign players, FIFA feels they would revive national teams and achieve greater parity.  This policy would do neither.

The rule is unworkable.  It is illegal in Europe.  The European Union forbids employee discrimination among member states.  Contrary to Sepp Blatter’s bleating, the EU is not going to change its laws to accommodate his whims.  Upon implementation, the rule would be challenged immediately by players or clubs under European Law and be overturned.

It would cheapen the quality of the game.  Managers would be forced to base tactics on flags rather than football.  The rule would subsidize and promote inferior players because of their nationality.  Managers with injured English players would have to call up kids from the U-18s rather than experienced foreign professionals to maintain the ratio.  It would entirely alter the way matches are managed, for no tangible benefit.

The rule would exacerbate existing problems rather than solve them.  The reason English clubs buy foreign players is that it is more cost effective.  It makes far more sense to pick up Robin Van Persie for £2.5m than to shell out £17m for Darren Bent to rot on your bench.  English players often get stifled at lower clubs because they are so overvalued (see Gareth Barry or Micah Richards).  The 6-5 rule would only raise the already inflated value of English players, pricing the elite ones out from all but the top teams.

It would also hinder players’ development further by thrusting talented youngsters forward even more quickly.  England’s national team is the only major European side with a slew of flawed players.  Even the elites – Steven Gerrard, Wayne Rooney, Joe Cole – have obvious tactical and technical flaws in their game.  The players are rushed through the system because of their talent and are not coached.  That is the problem that needs to be addressed, not their perceived lack of access to Premier League places (even though ten English players started for Manchester United and Chelsea in the Champions League final).

If there is no direct benefit to the national teams, the assumed intent would be to achieve parity.  However, the backhanded effort does little to create parity.  Inflating the value of national players may even limit cost-effective alternatives and widen the gap further.

A far more sensible policy for promoting the domestic game would be the implementation of UEFA’s homegrown player rules.  It encourages clubs to invest in their youth system and player development without foisting unwieldy tactics upon managers or breaking EU laws.

A better way to police big clubs would be to directly address them by imposing spending caps, a salary crap, or some form of revenue sharing/luxury tax in domestic leagues.

Trying to accomplish both in a slapdash, ill-considered way to achieve demagogic popularity is doomed to failure.

Also just for speculation, would Cardiff have to field six English players or six Welsh players?

I’ve been meaning to do an in-depth piece on FIFA president Sepp Blatter’s proposal to introduce quotas on the number of foreign players that teams can field. Yesterday, FIFA held a vote and Blatter’s proposal cleared its first major hurdle. The FIFA Congress delegates voted 155-5 in favour of the proposal which would limit the number of foreign players who can start a match to five.

I’m certainly not a fan of Sepp Blatter but for many reasons I agree with this move and will explain the ramifications further in a detailed follow-up post. The main reasoning behind the move towards quotas on foreign talent is that there is a growing sporting and economic inequality amongst the clubs. Teams like Real Madrid, Chelsea and Manchester United spend large sums of money to obtain any player they want, often at the cost of pushing out young national players. There are also issues about young players moving countries when they are 15 or 16 and whether that is in the best interest of the player regardless of the money to be made.

Many astute minds within the game also back these moves. For example, German legend Franz Beckenbauer, chairman of FIFA’s Football Committee, fully backs the quota proposals. He told reporters: “We have clubs in Germany where there are no German players on the field. That is not in the interest of football and its future.”

Blatter’s proposal would start with a 4 home-grown + 7 foreigners ratio in 2010, 5+6 in 2011 and finally arrive at 6+5 in 2012.

FIFA also introduced strict new rules on Friday to make it harder for players to switch nationalities and stop countries abusing the current system. The FIFA Congress overwhelmingly supported a proposal to amend their own statutes on the regulations allowing players to represent countries other than their homeland. Under the previous system, the rules allowed uncapped players to switch allegiances if they had lived in a country for at least two years, or have a parent or grandparent who were born there. England midfielder Owen Hargreaves is an oft-cited example of this previous rule though there are many others, such as Patrick Vieira, choosing to play for a more prominent national team instead of choosing to play for their native countries. The waiting period has now been extended to five years as part of the plan to reduce the number of foreign footballers playing abroad.

FIFA & UEFA face some opposition from the European Union on this proposal but the hope is that the Treaty of Lisbon will be ratified by Jan. 1 2009 which would allow the European Union to recognize that sport may be a special case.