It's Better To Be Thought An Idiot...

I've made no secret of my distaste for everything associated with the English Football Association (FA). Their wanton decisions of which players to sanction (usually United players) while letting others go unpunished (usually C-Club and Liverpool players) is legendary.

Their lack of self-control is also legendary, and it was with that charge that they sought to right the ship when they hired Lord Triesman to run the joint in December 2007. They thought the former Government Minister was the right man for the job; the one who could bring the FA's business affairs and sullied reputation an aire of legitimacy. They were wrong.

Sepp Blatter (whom I affectionately call Septic Bladder), the president of FIFA and all things footy referred to England as the "Motherland of football" earlier this week when Lord Triesman and David Beckham presented England's 1,752 page "bid book" for the 2018 World Cup. Yet England has always managed to "bottle it" when it comes to bids of any kind. Their one true glory has been the 2012 Olympics and Brits everywhere were shocked by that victory.
It is astonishing to think that a country boasting the birthplace of "establishment," something which is fomented every day with elitism from Buckingham Palace, could go so wrong in the protocol department.

So it seems a few days after Goldenballs charmed the socks off His Majesty The Bladder, England's chances of securing the 2018 World Cup may well be scuttled like an old warship.

Beckham and Blatter

Lord Triesman and Lord Goldenballs

Long thought to be one of the favorites for the 2018 bid, Englands efforts have been depth-charged by Lord Triesman's loose tongue.
He met with a former aide, Melissa Jacobs, over lunch and spewed out one winner after another. Why are we hearing about it? This woman was not just a former aide, but one whom with the married Triesman had a brief affair. She was also taperecording the conversation, so denying he made the remarks would be moot at this point.
So what exactly did he say?
He accused Spain of colluding with Russia to hijack the referees at this year's World Cup. His theory? That Spain would back out of its bid for the 2018 WC and support Russia's bid if they helped them bribe the referees in South Africa.
His version seems highly implausible for two reasons: firstly, the task of knowing who the referees would be in any given match would also require collusion on FIFA's part, and secondly, Spain is in a joint bid with Portugal. Was he saying that Spain is acting unilaterally from their host partner? That would be interesting, especially since Spain and Portugal could be competing against each other in South Africa. And if Spain purposefully dumped their bid, they would be dumping Portugal's chances as well.
To add insult to injury, the chairman of FIFA's refereeing committee is none other than Angel Marua Villa Llona, the president of the Spanish FA.

Triesman also spoke about the bid process and how country representatives wanted perks in return for a bid vote. He said that Latin American countries have a "history of extraordinary corruption," and that one Latin American wanted an honorary knighthood in exchange for his vote. This isn't difficult to believe, as the same man received a similar honor from France after voting for their successful 2006 bid.

He didn't stop with the World Cup, but also waxed about the John Terry scandal. "I thought that it was bad behaviour and very disruptive to the team. The rest of the players pretty much thought that." He went on to say that when summoned by Capello to talk about his issues, Terry asked, "Can I see you at home or at Stamford Bridge?" to which Capello replied, "You'll be at Wembley at 10."

But Triesman's most scathing remarks about Terry made reference to his lack of moral upbringing (something to which I stated repeatedly in my blog)...

"He doesn't believe he did anything wrong at all. Doesn't see it. His Mum and Dad tell him he didn't do anything wrong...all his mates in Dagenham tell him, 'you never done nothin' wrong.'"

Lord Triesman also commented at length about the issue of foreign ownership in the Premier League. He suggested a "fit and proper person test," and that the league leadership dismissed him with "if they haven't been convicted of something then it's just your judgment on whether you like them or not." When faced with that argument, he gave them another analogy:

"The logic of the argument if you take it to its logical conclusion is Robert Mugabe will never be convicted of anything in Zimbabwe, he runs it, he could own a club, he could pass the test. Nelson Mandela on the other hand was convicted of terrorist crimes, he doesn't want it written off his record because he's very proud of it. Mandela can't own a club. Mugabe can."

The Premiership leaders were not swayed and told Triesman, "Oh don't be ridiculous."

I have several issues with the Lord Triesman Affair.

1. Why do the British press constantly try to ruin anything that might be good for England? It is obvious that Miss Jacobs (who posed so demurely in her snap for the article) was trying to get an old flame (and one she said she is still friends with and "respects") to divulge something. But for what reason? He didn't tell her anything about the WC bid until she met with him. Why did she take a taperecorder with her? Was she desperate for money and hoped he would give her something for which she could skewer him later?
The whole thing just stinks of "set up."

2. Is selling a few newspapers worth scuttling your country's chances of hosting the World Cup, a thing which would bring far more revenue to your dumb newspaper than the few quid you will make on this story? The timing of the article might all but kill England's chances, and one might think the Daily Mail acted selfishly. But of course they will wrap their guilt in "it's journalism...we owe it to the people."

I'm not defending Lord Triesman's actions. He was foolish to trust his former flame and most-assuredly will lose his position with the FA. But you can't blame him solely for this mess.  The famewhore who set him up will get her fifteen minutes of infamy, and the Daily Mail will make a few quid.
The big loser in all of this?


England.