Best Manager Outside The Premiership

Carrying on from my theme where I chose my Premier League Team Of The Decade , I recently got talking to a friend about which currently-employed Football League managers are the best outside the Premiership. It's very easy to say that Sir Alex Ferguson, Jose Mourinho, Fabio Capello and other top flight managers with a plethora of silverware to their name are the best, but it becomes slightly harder to judge as you moved down the footballing pyramid - in my opinion anyway. Here are my current top 5 in order and I would be interested to gather everyone's thoughts on both what I've chosen and who, if any, should replace them in the list:

1. Billy Davies (Nottingham Forest): Whilst not everyone will be a fan of his rather direct style of football, Davies is a master of getting his teams organised to play as a unit. He has shown in his time at both Preston and Derby that he excels in getting the most out of his team and his players to play 'for him'. For me there is no better example of this than looking at the Playoff Final which he won against West Brom for Derby - if you look at the two squads on the report, there is an obvious gulf in class with the Baggies having much more quality all over the pitch. However, we all know the outcome with the Rams being victorious before Davies was harshly sacked the next season in the Premiership, perhaps a victim of his own unexpected success.

The Scot returned to management last season at local rivals Nottingham Forest and in a short period of time has turned them from relegation battlers to genuine promotion contenders. There can be no doubting that he has had a fair amount of money to spend this time around, but the seeming ease with which Davies has managed to yet again mould a team capable of playing with his ideas in such a short period of time is the reason why I have him as my number one pick.

2. Gordon Strachan (Middlesbrough): It was a close call for me between Davies and his Scottish counterpart in deciding who came first. Strachan endured a rather rocky start to his managerial career at Coventry City, where he was forced to sell prized assets such as Robbie Keane, eventually succumbing to relegation and being sacked at the beginning of the next season (2001/2). 'Wee Chesney' as Celtic fans called him, was not to be deterred though and made an almost immediate return to football at Premiership strugglers Southampton.

Over the next three years, Strachan was to transform the Saints' fortunes, finishing 11th in his first season then 8th the next year, reaching an historic FA Cup Final against Arsenal in which they narrowly lost 1-0 at Millennium Stadium and earning them a place in the UEFA Cup. Strachan resigned in February 2004, the next season, with the club in a much healthier position than when he took over. After turning down a host of jobs following his voluntary break from football, Gordon Strachan succeeded Martin O'Neill as manager of Scottish giants Celtic in 2005 where he spent 4 years, winning 3 SPL titles, 1 Scottish FA Cup and 2 Scottish League Cups. Of course, he resigned in May this year and recently took over the reigns from Gareth Southgate at Middlesbrough. Strachan for me is another manager capable of organising his teams well and getting the most out of minimal resources - very good traits to have at a time where the financial gap between the Premiership and Football League appears to be widening more by the year.

3. Sean O'Driscoll (Doncaster Rovers): If ever there was a manager capable of working miracles on a budget, it was this guy. He got Bournemouth playing some excellent football after taking over in 2000 at the club where he'd spent most of his playing career under tight financial constraints, narrowly missing out on the playoff berth after failing to beat Reading in an entertaining 3-3 draw at Madejski Stadium on the last day of the 2000/1 season. The lack of funds were to take their toll though, with Bournemouth being relegated the following season, although O'Driscoll took them straight back up the next year. Despite having to sell key players like Carl Fletcher along the way and being cheated by Stephen Hunt , O'Driscoll managed to keep Bournemouth afloat at League One level playing attractive passing football thereafter, until he was approached by Doncaster Rovers in 2006.

In his first season at Doncaster (2006/7), O'Driscoll managed to win the Football League Trophy at Millennium Stadium with a 3-2 win over League One side Bristol Rovers and the fans began to warm to him. He was to build upon this success in the next year as he managed Donny to victory over the mighty Leeds United at Wembley in the League One Playoff Final as the underdogs caused a huge upset. He has since continued to do a good job for the Yorkshire outfit, establishing them as a Championship outfit who are easy on the eye and yet don't spend a lot of money, much like his previous club.

4. Simon Grayson (Leeds United): Grayson's still a fairly young manager, but has made a big impact so far in his managerial career. He took over as player-manager until the end of the season at Blackpool when they were struggling at the foot of League 1 in November 2005, having been promoted from reserve team boss. The next season Blackpool went on a run which saw them lose just one game in 16 early on, qualify for the 5th Round of the FA Cup for the first time in 17 years and then round it all off by winning promotion via the playoffs against Yeovil - quite some achievement given the Seasiders were battling relegation 12 months before.

Grayson went on to consolidate Blackpool's position in the Championship, before being approached by his boyhood team Leeds United last season. Although this was a drop down in division, the lure of the team he's always supported and the potential proved too much to turn down. Grayson has since turned Gary McAllister's stuttering team of underachievers into a force to be reckoned with, with United all but certain to be promoted to win League 1 this year and sensationally beating arch-rivals Manchester United at Old Trafford in the FA Cup last Sunday.

5. Paul Tisdale (Exeter City): Another bright young manager, Tisdale's remains unknown to many who only take in the upper tiers of our game, but there is certainly no doubting his talents. He began his managerial career at minnows Team Bath (university team), where he achieved three promotions in four years in non-league football and even qualified for the First Round of the FA Cup in 2002/3, where their home defeat against Mansfield Town was televised. This brought Tisdale to the attention of the nation and although he remained with the university side for three more years, Exeter City were to come calling.

When Tisdale took over at St James Park, Exeter were a club in crisis, having fallen out of the Football League and found themselves struggling in the Blue Square Premier. Like Sean O'Driscoll, Tisdale is renowned for getting teams to play decent passing football on a budget whilst still achieving good results - two things which do not always necessarily go hand-in-hand. The new boss quickly stabilised the club, before earning promotion back to the Football League via the playoffs in his second season (2007/8), defeating Cambridge United - another club which had fallen from grace. His work was far from done though, as he guided the club to back-to-back promotions by finishing second in League Two the season after, capping a miraculous turnaround in the club's fortunes and leading to him being touted for the vacant Reading manager's job at the time, although nothing came of it. Exeter are trying to consolidate this season and at the time of writing, find themselves two points clear of relegation in 18th place.

So there are my five...I'd be interested to hear people's views on who they think should be nominated as the best managers outside the top flight!

Royalee's Premier League Team Of The Decade

Season's greetings to everyone, I hope you all had a very merry Christmas and have something suitably fun to do this evening. Seeing as we've come to the end of the decade and this has brought about some nostalgia with regards to football, for a bit of fun I've decided to copy Andy Gray and have a crack at naming from Premiership Team Of The Decade.

I've gone for a 4-4-2 formation as I feel it gives me the most freedom in terms of who I can pick, let me know what you think and leave a comment with your own teams if you'd like...

Goalkeeper: SHAY GIVEN - This was a hard one for me as Gray picked Friedel and he's been very consistent over the years. However, I think it's slightly easier to look good as a 'keeper in teams like Blackburn where you have lots of shots to save and he lost his place at Liverpool. By the same token, Cech and Van Der Sar have played at top clubs and won trophies, but since the Hunt incident I don't think Cech's been the same and he gets away with a lot because of his size and Van Der Sar isn't what he once was in my opinion - he's made errors in big games and has benefited from playing behind a super defence. Pepe Reina deserves a mention, but I decided to give it to Shay Given in the end - at the start of the decade Newcastle were challenging for a Champions League spot under the late Sir Bobby Robson and Given shone then, as he also did last season when they struggled and then at Manchester City. I feel that he has the all round package as a goalkeeper as his decision-making is usually very good, he's as athletic a goalkeeper as I've ever seen with great reactions who is confident in taking cross and has good distribution.

Left Back: PATRICE EVRA - I think Evra shades this over Ashley Cole as I think he's been more consistent and is better defensively. There is no doubting Cole's attacking attributes and pace, but I feel Evra has these to match and in addition has improved decision-making with more mental strength. Time and time again I've seen Cole make silly errors like his part in the Michael Essien own goal against Reading which seriously dented Chelsea's title hopes on Boxing Day 2006, his reckless tackle on Alan Hutton in a 4-4 draw at White Hart Lane (he wasn't sent off for this, but he should have been and it again showed his inability to keep his cool) and his part in England's defeat against the Ukraine in our only defeat in qualification in October. Evra came to United at a time where Mourinho was cementing Chelsea's dominance at the summit of English football and has been a revelation, winning 3 Premier League titles and looking for another this time around.

Centre Back: JOHN TERRY - A product of Chelsea's academy system and the rock upon which they have built their success in the Abramovich era. At a time where the game has changed so much in terms of the technical aspect and the influx of a continental style from the arrival of foreigners, Terry remains a no nonsense stereotypical English centre-half. However, at a time in which these players out being phased out of the game at the top level, Terry remains very effective and uses a combination of strength, anticipation and timing to form one of the best central defensive partnerships in world football with Ricardo Carvalho. Terry has captained his side to 2 Premiership titles in addition to a host of other silverware and for this, he was one of the first names in my side.

Centre Back: RIO FERDINAND - Although I think that in more recent years, his partner in crime Nemanja Vidic has been the better of the two in terms of individual performance, Ferdinand has performed at the top of his profession for the entirety of the last decade. He is renowned as a footballing centre back and I struggle to disagree with Andy Gray's selection here. Ferdinand has the whole package really - a steady composure, excellent technique and skill on the ball combined with the raw physical attributes required to succeed. The transfer fees he has commanded at Leeds and Man United just go to show how highly-rated the former West Ham player is by his coaches former and present.

Right Back: GARY NEVILLE - For me this was the weakest position I had to choose from as there haven't really been any alternatives to Neville with longevity at the top level in this area. Yes it could be argued that the likes of Micah Richards and Bakary Sagna are the future, but they haven't really done it on the big stage for a sustained period of time and won honours. In spite of his recent injury problems, Neville has been around for the entire decade and winning trophies for pretty much the whole time as club captain of Manchester United. For these reasons, I really don't see any alternative to the former England right back.

Left Wing: THIERRY HENRY - Ryan Giggs has picked up pretty much every award possible in the last 12 months or so, but I can't help feeling that this is partially out of guilt that he was not presented with such awards during the 90's, during which he was arguably at his peak. Henry on the other hand is capable of playing anywhere across the attack and has really stood out as the best at what he does in the noughties. Blistering pace, exquisite skill, plenty of goals in him and one of the very best players to ever play in this country make him a must-have.

Central Midfield: PATRICK VIEIRA - Another member of Arsenal's 'Invincibles' which went the season unbeaten on their way to lifting the league crown in 2003/4. Big, strong, uncompromising, yet amazingly comfortable on the ball with an eye for goal in addition to his defensive attributes, the Gunners have had a gaping hole in their team ever since he left for Italy. I think this underlines his quality and based on the impact he's had on football over here and the void he seems to have left, he edges it over Roy Keane, who I thought was better in the previous decade like Giggs.

Central Midfield: FRANK LAMPARD - Just edged it over Gerrard for me due to his consistency and trophy collection over the decade. He scores a ridiculous amount of goals for a midfielder, is ever-reliable just like his England central midfield partner, has superb vision and anticipation and always manages to time his runs to perfection. Vieira's physicality combined with Lampard's attacking attributes would provide the perfect balance in my opinion and I don't think there are many who would relish the prospect of lining up against them on a Saturday afternoon!

Right Wing: CRISTIANO RONALDO - Former World Player of the Year, drove Manchester United towards European glory and 3 back-to-back Premiership titles...and all this coming straight after the infamous 'winker' incident at the 2006 World Cup with team-mate Wayne Rooney, who he would form a devastating attacking partnership with. Not the most likeable of players at times, but there's no doubting his brilliance - another of the first names on the teamsheet.

STRIKER: ALAN SHEARER - Broke Jackie Milburn's Newcastle goalscoring record this decade and was one of the best target men I've ever seen along with Drogba. Single-handedly carried Newcastle at times and was a big miss when he retired from international football after Euro 2000. I don't rate his managerial skills, but I couldn't fail to pick the Premier League's record goalscorer. Totally unplayable on his day.

STRIKER: WAYNE ROONEY - Ever since he burst onto the scene that day at Goodison Park where he unleashed a wicked curling shot over David Seaman to send the Everton faithful crazy, he was destined for greatness. It's incredible to think that he's only 24 years old yet he's achieved so much since he emerged onto the scene in 2003. Andy Gray picked Gianfranco Zola, but again I think that Zola was coming to the end of his best days at the start of the noughties whereas Rooney has swept all before him, which makes him my final pick.

World Cup Qualification

Hello, apologies for going silent over the last month but I've been busy with other things going on. However, this time has enabled me to think up several more topics and November was certainly an eventful month, particularly in international football! Much has been made of the 'Hand of Frog' involving squeaky clean Thierry Henry who once launched a tirade at Barcelona for cheating (would you believe it?), but to be honest I'm pretty bored with that incident and it would appear everyone apart from Ireland would agree.Instead, I would like to investigate the World Cup qualification process (well, the European part anyway).

I think there are a number of issues which need resolving or at least improving for the better in the near future. For me there would appear to be flaws throughout - starting at the number of games and strength of the teams in the group stage through to the seeding of the playoffs, the use of extra time for second legs (something Giovanni Trapattoni alluded to in his post-game press conference) and lastly the seeding of qualified teams for the tournament itself.

The current way that the groups are drawn for qualification is that based on their world rankings and recent performances, teams are split into 6 pots with the strongest being Pot A and the weakest being Pot F. One team is drawn from each pot so that there are 9 groups of 6 (with one smaller group of 5 as there is one less team in Pot F than the other pots. This means that most countries play 10 games in qualification in the group stage. The first placed team in each group qualifies automatically for the World Cup Finals and the best 8 2nd placed teams (take from their results against the rest of the top 5 teams in their group) to allow for the single 5-team group go into the playoffs.

The playoff teams are then seeded into Pot 1 (stronger) and Pot 2 (weaker) depending on their ranking, and then for each of the 4 games one team from Pot 1 meets a team from Pot 2 with the winning team over 2 legs progressing to the World Cup Finals. Away goals come into effect in the playoffs and if the score is equal on aggregate and unable to be separated by away goals at the end of extra time in the second leg, the tie is decided on penalties.

Once the qualification process is complete, yet another seeding process occurs for the World Cup Finals Group Stage. The top 5 placed European teams in the rankings, plus two from South America (usually Brazil and Argentina) and the hosts (South Africa) are placed in the top pot (Pot 1). Pot 2 consists of 5 teams from the AFC, 3 teams from CONCACAF and one team from the OFC. Pot 3 has 5 teams from CAF and 3 teams from CONMEBOL, leaving the remaining UEFA nations in Pot 4.

The first issue I have is with regards to the make-up of the original

qualification groups. Players and coaches alike are constantly complaining of fixture congestion and the strain it puts on a player. If you look at the teams in Pots D, E and F, only Slovakia, have qualified for a World Cup Finals in the last 12 years (and even that was just this campaign), so surely it stands to reason that less of these teams should be playing the likes of Spain, Italy, England, Germany and France in pointless qualification games where there is only likely to be one outcome? International Football has suffered at the hands of the domestic game over recent years, particularly in Europe where people would much rather see Manchester United V Chelsea than Andorra V England on a Saturday afternoon. Also, if you are an Andorra or San Marino fan, is it really that enjoyable to see your team spanked in every group in qualification for every tournament?

My solution would be to keep the existing Pot A, move one team up from C to B and another from D to C based on the nations' FIFA World Rankings at the start of the qualification draw (leaving the first 3 pots all with 9 teams). To encourage more competition between the poorer quality teams and reduce the number of games the top players in the world are forced to play, I would make the poorer teams in Pots D to E play each other in a preliminary qualification stage.

There are 26 teams falling under the existing Pots D, E and F, which would go down to 25 under this new system. I would split these 25 into 5 groups of 5 teams with each team playing the other home and away. The top team from each group, plus the 4 best second-placed teams would then progress to the final qualification stage to play the teams from Pots A, B and C.

The final qualification stage would then comprise of 9 equal groups of 4 teams (one from Pot A, one from B, one from C and one from the Preliminary Qualifiers Pot), which would have been fairly seeded. This would reduce the number of games for the elite teams by 4 in most cases and increase the intensity of this part of the competition, generating more interest. The top teams from this Final Qualification Stage would qualify automatically as they do now in the existing system, with the top 4 second-placed teams also qualifying for the World Cup Finals automatically, abolishing the playoffs.

One could argue that the playoffs add something to the qualification process as they provide a knock-out 'cup' element which excites the neutral, but I would point to the fact that the likes of England, Holland and Spain had qualified from their groups 2 games or more before the end of the groups this time around, which rendered at least 20% of their games pointless. This is not to mention the games played between the two bottom-placed teams in the groups after the 6-game mark. Under this new system, due to the reduced number of games and the battle for second place, it is more than likely that every game will count, making for a much more exciting spectacle.

Into the World Cup Finals Group Stage seeding process...I feel this needs altering slightly also. Firstly, although I agree that the host nation should qualify automatically for the tournament, to have them as a top seed in Pot 1 in South Africa's case is laughable and devalues the competition. The host should, in my opinion, be allocated a Pot based on their FIFA World Ranking and recent performance in major tournaments, meaning South Africa would be in Pot 3.

In addition to this, to avoid the debate and disagreement of the last week regarding England and France's seeding, I would seed the UEFA teams purely upon how many points they assembled in the Final Qualification Stage, with goal difference being the decider after that. So this year the way UEFA's seeds have been allocated, the teams with the best 5 records in qualifying would be in Pot 1, with the remaining 8 in Pot 4.

Lastly, I noticed FIFA chose to separate teams from certain continents - Brazil and Argentina couldn't be drawn against the three other South American teams. Give me a break! So the South American teams are being prevented from playing arguably the best team in the tournament for geographical reasons? I guess it would be crazy to place teams on merit!

Thoughts anyone?

Sending Players Off For Preventing A 'Goalscoring Opportunity'

Ever since Law 12 of the Laws of Association Football has been amended to state that a player should be shown a straight red card for 'denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity' as opposed to the use of the wording 'professional foul', it has caused controversy and much debate. The thinking behind this change was to eliminate the 'professional foul' whereby a defender would deliberately attempt to foul an opponent in order to stop him from scoring a goal in an advanced position. A good example of the cynicism involved before the introduction of this ruling would be Ronald Koeman's foul on David Platt which pretty much cost Graham Taylor his job (thanks Ronald).

However, the problem with this ruling is that a deliberate 'professional foul' like you might see Ricardo Carvalho typically commit on a Saturday afternoon is very different to simply preventing a goalscoring opportunity through an innocently mistimed tackle. 'Professional foul' is not included in the wording, meaning referees now send off players for any foul preventing a goalscoring opportunity.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but in an instance where a goalkeeper gives away a penalty (like Robert Green against the Ukraine the

other week), this punishes the offending team twice (penalty and red card) and in many instances costs them the match through a split-second mistake. Surely a penalty kick is giving the opposition another golden goalscoring opportunity to score from and a yellow card maximum would suffice if the foul was not deliberate? Apparently not in the eyes of FIFA and Sepp. Love him or hate him, Jens Lehmann was the victim of this absolute atrocity of a ruling in the Champions League Final of 2006 and one questions whether the club football showcase of the year needed effectively ending early in the first half for the sake of an innocent mistake.

Aside from this, FIFA aren't really very good at defining this 'goalscoring opportunity' - there are no precise details given in the Laws of the game and this leads to much confusion and controversy every week. Yesterday, for example, Jamie Carragher intentionally brought down Michael Owen when he was the last man between him and goal, but was only booked. Owen was outpacing Carragher and looked set to run through on goal, so I'm not quite sure why the red card wasn't produced - this was exactly the 'professional foul' which needs punishing, but the Law is so poorly thought out and written that it fails to serve its purpose.

One major issue I have is that the Law is too rigid and poorly-worded - I referee at youth level and like to do so with a certain degree of common sense. Last season I refereed an Under 13 game and one team were 4 or 5 goals down when the opposition striker burst into the penalty box and the goalkeeper dived at his feet to try and gather the ball, but fouled the striker in the process. Obviously I gave the penalty straight away, but the result was already decided with about 10 minutes left in the game and it had been a case of lambs to the slaughter. Therefore, I decided that as the goalkeeper clearly wasn't trying to foul the guy, had done his best but his team obviously weren't very good, and looked extremely downhearted as all he looks forward to during the week is a crack at football on a Sunday morning, I left it at that. The striker scored the penalty with ease and then added another to complete his hat-trick 2 minutes later.

At the end of the game, everyone shakes hands in good spirit, and then I'm approached. I'm approached by the manager of the team whose goalkeeper gave the penalty away, and he has a question to ask me. "Just a quick question, shouldn't you have sent him off? I'm a qualified referee and assessor and I think you got that wrong, surely he deserved to go?" I'm speechless and having bitten my lip, I politely reply "well to be honest if it was the FA Cup Final at 1-1 in the last minute, probably, but the poor kid pays his fees to play on a Sunday and I don't agree to sending him off when it makes no difference to the outcome of the game, but he still gets a fine and will probably come off gutted. You have your opinion and I'll have minute, good game anyway." I walk off.

I've recently given up on refereeing for the time being - this is one of the main reasons for my decision, referees are not supposed to have common sense, let the game flow and allow for situations apparently.

Anyway, back on topic...common sense needs to be applied in the professional game. At the same time, referees are given too much power in some instances - another example of this is being able to give players yellow cards during play for diving. If a referee thinks a player has dived when he hasn't, we have seen instances of players being harshly sent off. Referees have been known to get free kick decisions and penalties wrong where in real time it looks like a defender has taken the player's legs, but in the replay we can see he has won the ball. Players are getting sent off for perfectly good tackles, like Darren Fletcher in the Semi Final of last season's Champions League. The less power referees are given to affect games through one single decision, the better in my opinion. This is increasingly the case given the change in the pace of the game over recent years, which has made their jobs far harder.

You know you're in trouble when the pundits don't even know the rule properly. I'm sick to death of Andy Gray and co saying 'he had to be sent off because he was the last man'. So if a player gets fouled at the corner flag, should he be sent off Andy seeing as he's the last man between the player and goal? Of course not, because the Law says 'goalscoring opportunity', not 'last man'. FIFA also need to clear this up and force feed it to TV companies, right before they abolish the whole thing altogether.

Perhaps a more sensible approach would be for a yellow card to be produced for prevention of a goal-scoring opportunity, with a red produced for a blatant hauling down like Carragher's or Koeman's as these surely can't be missed by officials? Or am I missing something and this is a great rule despite it ruining the spectacle of many a game, effectively deciding them in an instant despite away supporters travelling hundreds of miles in some instances to be entertained?

Premier League Home Grown Player/Squad Size Ruling 2010/11

Proposals

Last month the FA Premier League announced that it was to introduce a new home grown player and squad size ruling, to be brought in for the start of next season (2010/11). The league's Chief Executive Richard Scudamore confirmed that "as of next season clubs will be required to have a squad named of up to 25 players, of which no more than 17 can be over the age of 21 and not home grown. The definition of 'home grown' is trained for three years under the age of 21 by somebody in the English and Welsh professional system. Clubs will have to declare their 25 at the end of August when the window shuts and then again at the end of January."

This is in a similar vein to the ruling UEFA brought in a few years back which stipulates similar limitations in terms of maximum squad numbers and a minimum of 8 'home grown' players in each squad. The idea behind this is to protect the interests of each country's domestically-trained assets and give them every chance to progress through first team football, or so Michel Platini says. The question is though, does it really work?

Is this really the root of the problem?

Looking at the Dutch, who many would agree are the masters of bringing their own through, you begin to see other problems which may be more prevalent in terms of the production of young footballers. PSV Eindhoven, known for producing the likes of Van Nistelrooy, Philip Cocu and Jaap Stam in the past, have complained that the main problem facing them is that they are not being able to hang on to their prized assets due to the Bosman Ruling. There is no doubt that there is still a lot of good young talent in Holland, but its clubs are losing the incentive to nurture them for fear of losing them - nothing to do with home-grown 'quotas' and everything to do with money as they cannot afford the same wages some of our rich oil industry billionaires can.

Aside from this point that the FA (and FIFA/UEFA) could be targeting the wrong source of the problem in the first place, is this going against the grain of freedom of trade and everything the EU stands for? Surely in a place of employment, it is wrong to discriminate against a player not born here if they are good enough to do a job in the eyes of their prospective employers? FIFA/UEFA/the FA's product is based on entertainment and quality which then draws in the money through gate receipts and television revenue, and the game appears to be flourishing and healthier than ever, so why the need to go back to the old days?

Speaking of money, let's take a look for a second at the millions upon

millions of Pounds, not to mention the time and effort invested into our academy systems (and we're not alone, the model was taken from abroad where it has previously been implemented in places like France and Holland). The academy systems are beginning to finally show signs of fruition in this country with players such as Theo Walcott, Aaron Lennon, Glen Johnson and Wayne Rooney all becoming familiar figures in the English national team having come through them.

Where are football clubs getting all the money from to fund these academies and the future of our game? That's right, TV revenue and other income streams directly linked to the high quality of the product on offer - thanks in no small part to the foreign influences in the Premier League. Would so many people from across the world tune in without entertainers like Arshavin, Drogba, Torres and Robinho appearing as regularly, instead being being replaced with unspectacular, if steady home-grown players all over the pitch? Of course, we have our own talents in those I've mentioned and Joe Cole (who is as close to a Brazilian as we have in terms of technique and tricks), but surely the natural balance between Brits and foreigners can find itself without the intervention of governing bodies in this manner?

One thing I've yet to touch upon is a rather puzzling additional ruling with regards to academies and home-grown players which the FA have, in their infinite wisdom, seen fit to pass. This ruling is the '90-minute from home' rule which in short means that clubs are no longer allowed to draft in players who live more than a '90 minute commute' from them to play in their academies. So hang on a second, the Premier League want to bring in a rule which 'encourages' youth development through forcing clubs to name home-grown players in their squads, yet restricts their movement within our own country, thus restricting their development in the process? Good thinking.

Opposition from a couple of friends

Two men who are also slightly miffed by this are those best of pals Sir Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger. Ferguson said, "The 90-minute rule is the most ridiculous rule I have ever known. 90 minutes could be 5 miles up the road. I would have thought it was illegal to deny a young boy the chance to come to a club like Manchester United but it is something we can do nothing about." Wenger shared Fergie's concerns and when taking into account his own good work at bringing youngsters through at Arsenal, he added that:

"It will make that policy virtually impossible. If you cannot add any players under 18, and you have the home-grown rule, and on top of that English clubs are limited to bringing in young players who live less than 90 minutes from the training ground - how can we produce home-grown players? Personally, I don't know. So it's vital that this under-18 transfer rule is not implemented because English clubs would have a domestic limitation and a foreign limitation, making it harder to produce home-grown players.

"In England we accumulate disadvantages. We cannot buy (an academy player) outside our 90-minute radius, so already we cannot take a player from Manchester or Southampton. We cannot take a player from Asia, North or South America. What can we do? We can only pray that somebody next to London Colney is as gifted as the next Maradona and says, 'please can I play for you?' We want to be the best league in the world and that is why we have to open the doors to the best players in the world. The first signs, with Cristiano Ronaldo and Kaka going to Spain, are not very good for us. You have to accept that the best have to play with the best."

Going back and focusing strictly on next season's new ruling, I could understand limitations placed upon squad size years ago, but surely this is shooting our own clubs in the foot nowadays? Cup competitions are already being devalued as it is without extra incentive to rest players for vital league and Champions League games as the latter increase in number. This is damaging the domestic game to a large degree, so why impose such restrictions? Are Chelsea going to risk Drogba in an FA Cup game knowing that if he gets injured they may be forced to play Daniel Sturridge on his own at Old Trafford the following week if he gets injured? No disrespect to Sturridge, but there is no comparison between the two - at this stage in his career anyway, so why put him under unnecessary pressure when he could be sent out on loan to gain vital experience instead of this self-imposed nonsense?

So far I've only really looked at the top clubs, but the effect may hit the Hulls, Birminghams and Blackburns of this world even harder. These clubs muddle through as it is scouring the world for bargains on cheaper wages than their English counterparts - what would happen to them if they were being prevented from doing so and in addition English players' transfer fees and wages were artificially inflated as a consequence of the new ruling? Supply would not be equal to demand in terms of the players required and average players like Kevin Davies and Mark Noble could be fetching 8-figure fees in the not-too distant future with the gap between top and bottom widening yet further. This would make for a less competitive league and attendance figures and revenue could again fall as a direct result of this.

Proposed solution

As crazy as this may sound, I think that UEFA may have hit the nail on the head with their recent proposition regarding spending. A big reason for over-inflated salaries and teams looking abroad for players is the influx of foreign ownership in our game and clubs spending far outside their means in business terms. European Football's leading body recently put forward plans to prevent clubs from spending over what they take each year in terms of revenue. After careful consideration, this is not as daft as it seems...

Under this new system, the likes of Real Madrid, Manchester City and Chelsea would be forced to rethink their foreign policies and look to use their facilities to bring through more players from their own countries. Madrid have already proven they can do it with Raul and Casillas, City with Wright-Phillips and Stephen Ireland and Chelsea with England captain John Terry. In my opinion this would be preferable to an imposed salary cap per player, or squad restrictions and would force clubs into becoming more efficient in terms of their operations as well as perhaps restoring some identity. Of course this would still leave the door open to bringing in top quality foreign players, but in partnership with a healthy production line of British youngsters. Naturally, we'd also scrap that daft 90-minute rule as it is denying our youngsters the chance to gain top coaching and experience, which is what they'd want in a new system.

Thoughts?

Goal-line Technology - The Debate Rages On

Geoff Hurst's second goal in England's victorious World Cup Final of 1966, Pedro Mendez's long range pot-shot spilt by the red-faced Roy Carroll at Old Trafford the lino failed to pick up on. Reading's frankly ridiculous goal at Watford last year, Freddie Sears' effort that hit the stanchion and bounced back out at Ashton gate which sparked outrage from the ever-lovable Neil Warnock...goals change games and history (or not in some cases!).

Bad refereeing decisions are one thing (I'll get to why I think our referees aren't up to standard and why that is at a later time), but whether or not the whole of a football has crossed a white line or not is black and white (green if I'm being particularly anal), is it not? Football is the greatest game on the planet, but as the quality (and pace as a result) of the game increases, the technology being used continues to lag seriously behind. Cricket has Hawkeye, an excellent proven system for judging the flight of the ball and whether or not it would have hit the stumps in LBW appeals, rugby has video-refs and football has...stupid-looking walky talky headsets as modelled expertly by Mr Pedantic himself, Rob Styles.

Various pundits, managers, officials and governing bodies alike have agreed that in the 21st Century, these poor levels of accuracy and lack of common sense through implementation of new systems are unacceptable. Even England's chief of the Professional Game Match Officials Board Keith Hackett has called for technology to be introduced, saying: "I think the major issue centres around the fact that for a number of years PGMOB have been calling for goal-line technology to be introduced. In fairness the Premier League worked with Hawkeye to achieve a product that the Premier League wanted to put into an operation as an experiment with the full support of the Football League, FA, LMA and PFA. All the parties were in favour, but at the international board meeting in Gleneagles a year ago, FIFA and Sepp Blatter decided the experiment could not go ahead."

Hackett's comments with regards to FIFA are concerning given that the game's governing body are supposed to be the ones with football's best interests at heart, and unfortunately this appears to be nothing new - just ask Guus Hiddink. Hiddink of course recently spent a period in charge at Chelsea and saw his then employers denied a clear goal against Juventus in the Champions League by a lack of technology. Hiddink stated that "technology must be used on this - then there won't be a dispute, it's a yes or no. We did it with Phillips in my very early days at PSV in the 80's and it worked really well. But the people who were deciding didn't want to know and that was 20 years ago. Now I think the technology is so perfect that, for me, it must be done."

So wait a minute, Phillips tried to develop this a 5th of a century ago back in the days when Manchester United fans thought that Sir Alex Ferguson was useless, Margaret Thatcher was in power and the Berlin Wall still stood yet during a period where so much change (much of it good) has happened, FIFA have chosen to remain in the stone age? I find this rather absurd and frankly extremely concerning when I come to the realisation that these clowns are entrusted with the future of the game.

Right, mini-rant over...so which technology or new systems should be used?

Potential Systems

Extra officials: UEFA have trialled the addition of two extra officials (one at either goal) in the Europa League (UEFA Cup for those who can't keep up with the annual faffing around, re-naming and re-formatting process Michel Platini seems to have become obsessed with). The idea is that this will solve the problem whereby a linesman is unable to keep up with play in order to make a decision if there's a long shot (a la Mendez at Old Trafford) which crosses the line.

This is all well and good in my opinion, but just as referees can make mistakes and fail to see what's right in front of them (hey, we can't all see everything and be perfect), this system is still open to human error and the officials still only have a split second to make a decision in some cases. What people tend to forget is that the WHOLE ball has to be over the goal-line, not some or most of it, and this is often harder than it seems to pick out, especially at high speed. You have to allow for things such as goalkeepers diving and in some cases obstructing the officials' view of the ball - I was watching an NHL game the other night (granted, an ice hockey puck is a lot smaller and harder to spot, but the principle is still there) and there was an instance where the goalie fell on top of the puck. Even though it appeared that he'd saved the goal and this was deemed to be the case, it was still impossible to tell 100% as his pad was covering the puck and it could have been at the top (outside the goal) of his pad or the bottom (in the goal).

A third disadvantage of UEFA's trialled system involves its influence on play itself. Recently I was lucky enough to watch a game at Wembley in the top tier and some may be aware that they have a camera there which is suspended from the roof. Obviously it has nothing to do whatsoever with the outcome of the game, it is just there to observe and record, but when the ball was played from one end to another, I (and others around me, I made sure I wasn't cracking up!) often got distracted by it as it often appeared as if there was a defender playing someone onside or an attacker who was unmarked. The relevance of this is that the extra officials on the pitch are at the side of the goal and this could throw the goalkeeper and defenders a bit as they might be drawn to their movement with officials moving in and out of their blind spots. It is for these three reasons that I don't believe that UEFA'S new method is the best way to move forwards.

Video Technology: As I mentioned to begin with, sports such as rugby deploy a video ref system whereby the game is stopped when contentious incidents take place and video evidence is examined during a short delay in play, before a decision is made. The idea in football would be for the referee (or alternatively an official in the stands) to look at a camera angle from level with the goalposts and determine whether or not the ball had crossed the line.

To begin with this would seem to be an excellent idea - referees being given perfect evidence with which to extract a decision from...but is this really perfect? The ice hockey 'was it? wasn't it?' debate springs to mind here and often on TV, pundits take a look at 3 or 4 different angles of an incident and are still arguing among themselves as to whether or not it was a goal. Football is a brilliant sport to watch, and much of that is due to the way in which it tends to flow as a spectacle and I feel that this has the potential to affect it. Large delays in play could kill momentum as teams push for a late goal and give defenders chance to rest and detract from the action, dampening the 'live experience' for supporters in the process.

Thinking further into the future, I also fear that the introduction of video replays now could escalate into it being used for EVERY slightly contentious incident such as mistimed tackles, offsides and so forth, which would completely kill the game in my eyes. Games could potentially take hours upon hours to complete and that's even assuming that the appropriate time is added on. As it is referees appear to struggle with regards to timekeeping and I would worry that we'd lose even more time in terms of the ball being 'in play' if this was introduced without proper consideration and control devices.

I guess that means another no from me then!

Computer Chips/Adidas Teamgeist 2: This is perhaps the most interesting thing I have investigated. Basically FIFA and other footballing bodies had looked into the idea of a computer chip system whereby chips would be inserted into the goalposts and also different parts of a football. The idea is that if all the chips in the ball pass through the 'field' between the two goalposts then all of the ball must be over the line, meaning that a goal must have occurred. I suppose you could look at it sort of like the laser beam anti-theft traps in films (Ocean's Eleven springs to mind here) where an alarm is triggered if an object passes through them, except the only things able to set the alarm off here would be the chips in the ball. A more detailed explanation can be found here.

This technology was trialled at the World Club Championships in 2007 and was thought to be FIFA's preferred approach to solving the goal-line issue - Adidas were working in partnership with scientists and FIFA to develop this further in order to ensure it was 100% accurate and workable, but FIFA then moved away from the idea last year. This was a decision which was opposed by many top level clubs across Europe who voiced their concern that this could spell the end for goal-line technology and also that it would be a step backwards.

To me it seems very strange that FIFA have invested a lot of money, time and effort into an idea which seemed very promising and easy to implement at the expense of putting more bodies onto a football pitch, leading to the potential for over-complication. One point which football's governing body raised was that the Teamgeist 2 technology with goalposts might not be financially viable at the grass roots level of our game (but is the five-man officials system viable either given the decline in the number of referees as it is?!). I personally find this rather bewildering as you don't see video refs for park rugby or Hawkeye being used for Sunday league cricket, yet either sport does not seem to have collapsed!

The difference of course at the top level is the money at stake with millions and millions of Pounds being decided over split seconds, which surely increases the need for something to be done? Of course it's upsetting coming into work on a Monday morning having lost to your mates thanks to a dodgy decision, but could you imagine being denied a place in history or a new house by such a thing, (some people might call it a disgrace and even go as far as launching a tirade at a TV camera, but I personally think that's a bit much) isn't it a bit different?

The Verdict

I think FIFA are seriously missing a trick by holding back on the computer chip/magnetic technology. This could potentially eliminate the problem once and for all and wouldn't delay the game at all - surely it would be the perfect solution for everyone involved? The only doubt I would have over this would be the durability of the technology in terms of robustness given how hard a football can be struck (a Roberto Carlos free-kick perhaps) - could this knock the chips out of place or damage them? That said, we've managed to put a man on the Moon and invent beer so surely this is achievable?

Once again I look forward to hearing your comments...

So, Who Should Host The FIFA World Cup 2018?

Right, much has been made of England's bid to stage the 2018 World Cup in the media recently, which has stoked up debate as to whether or not we 'deserve' the tournament with some claiming it's 'our turn'. Others such as FIFA Vice-President Jack Warner remain unconvinced and recently referred to the FA's bid as 'lightweight' much to the dismay of many.

So who is right and who is wrong? I'm sure we each have our own opinions and perhaps the best place to start is by looking at each bidding country...

FIFA World Cup 2018 Bidding Countries

Australia: Australia's bid was confirmed in September 2007 comprising of 16 stadia, some of which can be found here. Perhaps the most notable inclusion and the likely venue for the Final should the Aussies win the right to stage the tournament would be the dramatic 100,000 capacity Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG) with its fine history, tradition and facilities.

This is all well and good, but perhaps this is also where Australia's problem lies - the MCG is indeed a cricket ground and while Australia offers plenty in the way of culture, infrastructure, tradition and a love for sport, the question remains as to how much it loves football itself - Australia has hosted the Rugby World Cup, Commonwealth Games and Olympics in recent years, but they are lacking in footballing history and purpose-built stadia. The Prime Minister of Australia Kevin Rudd has pledged to plough £20.36 million into the bid over three years, but will this be efor sport, football (or 'soccer' as they refer to it as they have their own Aussie Rules

Football) seems to lag behind here. The fact that there are only currently 5 stadiums there boasting a capacity in excess of 27,000 is also likely to concern FIFA representatives.

Further details of Australia's bid can be found here.

Belgium & The Netherlands: This is the first of two joint-bids which have been placed for 2018. Of course, these two did a reasonable job of staging UEFA Euro 2000, but the World Cup is arguably a much bigger stage. Japan and Korea were criticised for their lack of cohesion by Sepp Blatter (FIFA President) when they staged World Cup 2002 and this has in part led to concerns being raised about the workability of any joint bid.

Belgium's own FIFA Representative Dr Michel D'Hooghe has moved to counter this argument by saying that "the difference is that FIFA put Japan and Korea together although they aren't really capable of co-organising events, so they actually organised two 'mini-tournaments'. We, and Euro 2000, started together. We always said that we were one candidacy, which I clearly stressed to Blatter. We are not two candidates - we have one candidacy: the Low Countries."

There are certainly no shortage of marketable figures (something which Warner referred to in his recent criticism of England's bid) which have/are able to be used for the Benelux bid with the likes of Ruud Gullit, Dennis Bergkamp, Marco Van Basten, Justine Henin for starters. In particular Holland carries a strong footballing tradition with its flagship club Ajax producing generation after generation of top players.

However, the last decade or so has seen a decline in Dutch and Belgian football with Ajax and Anderlecht (arguably either country's biggest clubs) failing to perform on the European stage. Attendances have fallen and the two leagues have been left behind in terms of sponsorship revenue which has meant that the quality of stadia and facilities have dropped behind those of other nations. A major criticism is the lack of an 80,000 capacity stadium or higher which would be required in order to stage a final and although development has been mooted for Rotterdam, though many sceptics remain. Nevertheless, there is plenty of time and thus scope for planning and construction between now and 2018, although FIFA will be look for assurance - full details of the bid are located on the official website.

England: In October last year it was announced that England were to bid for the 2018 World Cup. England have of course hosted the World Cup on one previous occasion - in the glorious summer of 1966 which saw captain Bobby Moore lift the trophy. However, aside from Euro '96, England has not hosted a major footballing tournament since then, in which will be over half a century by the time 2018 comes around. Much has changed since that time and nothing is more indicative of that fact than the brand spanking new Wembley Stadium which leaves its crumbling old (if historic and much-loved) predecessor firmly in the shade.

Certainly in terms of stadia it would appear that we are there or thereabouts with the following grounds all potential candidates to stage games:

Wembley Stadium (90,000 capacity)

Old Trafford (76,000 capacity)

Emirates Stadium (60,400 capacity)

St James' Park (52,000 capacity)

Stadium of Light (49,000 capacity)

City of Manchester Stadium (48,000 capacity)

Villa Park (42,000 capacity)

Stamford Bridge (42,000 capacity)

Elland Road (40,000 capacity)

GoodisonPark (40,000 capacity)

I have chosen to exclude Anfield from this list as in all probability it will be replaced by the 60,000 Stanley Park Stadium (another able to stage games) and it is also worth noting that Tottenham are planning to build a new 60,000 capacity ground on the existing White Hart Lane site. This would potentially leave us with 9 ready-built and 2 additional expected stadiums well capable of hosting World Cup ties before we even contemplate looking at the vast array of quality stadia we are blessed with below the 40,000-capacity mark.

A question mark with our bid is raised over infrastructure as those of us who travel up and down the country on Saturdays to see our teams play may appreciate! However, with London staging the Olympics in the near future and the improvements which were made at Wembley tube station, are we being a bit over-cautious? After all, our transport links somehow stand up to the needs (just!) over 51,000,000 people in our increasingly-crowded country, so surely we can manage a few hundred thousand more for a month when many are on holiday anyway?

Our favourite Fifa Vice-President Mr Warner also went on to say that as well as being 'lightweight', our bid did not carry enough of a 'media profile', which I find puzzling given the presence of Prince William and also that one of the most famous men on the planet in David Beckham is central to the bid. One needs only to look at what the Premier League rake in in terms of television revenue and to realise that our league is the most watched and recognised in the world to see that quite from lacking a 'media profile', we arguably carry one of the strongest. With teams such as Manchester United going on pre-season tours of Asia and Chelsea jetting off to America in the summer, I would have thought our 'media profile' would be slightly higher than that of competitors Australia which is best known for Shane Warne (this is not in any way a dig at Warne because he's a legend, but he has nothing to do with football).

If you have a few spare minutes then England's 2018 bid website is worth taking a look at.

Indonesia: A surprise candidate perhaps, but Indonesia is not to be dismissed in all of this. Indonesia has a massive population (235,000,000) and also boasts the 88,000 capacity Bung Karno Stadium in Jakarta, which would be capable of staging the Final (it also staged the 2007 Asian Cup Final). Unfortunately it does not have the same levels of quality across the board as some of its competitors, with a reported $1 Billion being touted as the amount needed in order to bring other stadia in line with Fifa's requirements.

That said, the fact that there has only been one previous World Cup staged in Asia (Japan/South Korea 2002) may sweeten the deal as far as Fifa are concerned as they have repeatedly stressed their desire to spread and grow the game as much as they can with the World Cup being their jewel in the crown. Indonesia were indeed the first ever Asian country to feature in a World Cup Finals in 1938.

Infrastructure is another obstacle Indonesia must overcome if they are to be awarded the staging of the Greatest Show on Earth. Great strides must be made here in particular if the bid is to succeed and Indonesia FA Secretary General Nugraha Besoes conceded "this seems like only a dream for us now, but we must dare to dream big." Perhaps a website would be a start!

Japan: Japan may be hampered by the fact that it is only 7 years since they last hosted the tournament, albeit co-operatively with South Korea. Another factor holding Japan back is their lack of an 80,000 capacity ground to stage the final, as with Benelux. Japan recently staged a failed bid for the 2016 Olympics, which would have seen the construction of a new 100,000 seater stadium. This is thought to have put a massive dent into Japan's World Cup plans, even if the 2019 Rugby World Cup has been awarded to them and I would probably rule them out of the race.

Portugal & Spain: For me this is perhaps the fiercest rival bid there is. Portugal did an excellent job in hosting Euro 2004 and we know all about the grandeur of the Nou Camp and the Bernabeu. After a lot of 'will they?/won't they?' on the part of the two respective FA's and FIFA, FIFA President Sepp Blatter confirmed the bid at the beginning of this year.

The two countries have a decent enough infrastructure to stage such a tournament and although alone Portugal might not have had enough high-capacity stadia to make the jump up from European Championships to World Cup, combining with Spain has resulted in potentially one of the strongest World Cup bids for many a year (at least in terms on stadia alone). With Valencia and Atletico Madrid on the verge of moving to new state-of-the-art homes and Espanyol (Barcelona's poorer relations) already having done so having done so, you can see why this could get many people excited. The question is, would the Final be played at the home of Real Madrid or their fierce rivals Barcelona?

This is easily the strongest contender to prevent England from staging the tournament, especially as it would appear to be 'Europe's turn' and their bid would therefore provide a direct challenge through this reasoning. Fifa's main concern (and England's main hope for that matter!) would appear to be the lack of cohesion between the two countries which may come to disagree with each other with regards to who hosts what as the tournament goes on. In addition to this, although some of the aforementioned stadia have been built in the last year or so, the Nou Camp remains quite dated in terms of its facilities and the same could be said of Sevilla and Bilbao's grounds, which would surely be a part of the bid due to their size.

Russia: Vladimir Putin has ordered Russia's Sports Minister to 'prepare a bid for Russia to hold the 2018 World Cup'. Moscow recently did a decent job of hosting the 2008 Champions League Final between Manchester United and Chelsea where John Terry famously slipped, landed on his backside and handed the tournament to United in the penalty shoot-out.

According to the Head of the Russian FA, they are ready to splash around $10 Billion on the tournament should they be awarded it - an outlay which would make Roman Abramovich blush. This would firstly help to ensure that 5 stadia are fit to stage World Cup matches as early as 2013, which could set them apart from the likes of Indonesia. There is no doubt that this huge financial investment could make for a potentially spectacular event if it were to happen.

I would have thought that the first obstacle that Russia may have to overcome in order to win is a geographical one. With Russia being such a vast country in terms of its area, a World Cup becomes increasingly difficult to effectively manage. Teams and fans could have to travel large distances between games, with this having a negative effect on both the quality of football on show and atmosphere. There is also the issue of infrastructure, with roads being better in some places than others.

In addition to this, although security is much improved compared to what it used to be in this country, it is still perhaps not quite what some would like it to be (these views were expressed at the Champions League Final). I think 2018 could come a bit soon for Russia, but there is no doubting its potential and perhaps the same could be said of its website, which looks rather hastily put together.

USA: It has been well-documented that the 1994 World Cup USA broke many records in terms of attendances and revenue, which is bound to have pleased Fifa and all those associated. America is blessed with many great stadiums such and beautiful cities and it has used those to its advantage. The USA are masters in marketing - you only need to see NFL games being played at Wembley and the interest the NBA and NHL generate over here to see that, and this is demonstrated on their bid.

The Americans boast an impressive 27 cities and 32 stadiums which are able and vying to stage World Cup matches should their bid be successful, which completely gulfs their competitors. Facilities are tip-top and infrastructure and accommodation for fans, players and officials alike is outstanding and the envy of the rest of the world. They also have the Obama factor, which is a wave on which many over there appear to be riding at the moment.

The concern I (and perhaps Fifa) may have is whether or not the USA is 'ready' for another World Cup so soon as 2018. What I mean by this is that 1994 was deemed as the dawn of the 'Soccer Revolution' in the States where Pele had failed previously. Now it's 2009 and David Beckham has been in LA playing for the Galaxy for 2 years, yet although there

has been a slight rise in attendances and publicity it has gained, 'soccer' still fights an uphill battle against other sports. Beckham (rightly or wrongly - rightly in my opinion) didn't endear himself to the American faithful by his stint in Milan last winter and the American public may not have forgiven him or possess the hunger for the beautiful game that Sepp Blatter and Fifa are looking for.

The Verdict

Having thought long and hard about this one, I have come to the following conclusions...

England must stage the 2018 World Cup - she has the stadia, infrastructure, public interest, facilities and the tradition which would make for a perfect tournament. Euro '96 was a roaring success from start to finish and with the new grounds which have since been built with a handful to follow, 2018 would promise to be even bigger and better. Portugal & Spain are the closest rival in my eyes, but a joint bid involving a nation which has only recently staged a major tournament would be a mistake in my opinion, especially given the potential for friction between these two proposed joint hosts.

I would also give the USA the right to stage the 2022 World Cup as I think football will grow there over time, perhaps with an influx of more 'superstars' later into their careers. We are seeing more and more American players entering Europe with the likes of Clint Dempsey, Tim Howard and Brad Friedel all plying their trade here, in addition to Freddy Adu at Benfica and Altidore at Villareal (now on loan at Hull), and these are encouraging signs of development. A criticism I have at the moment is that although the stadia there are excellent, there don't seem to be many which are purpose-built for our football - instead they favour the egg-shaped ball. Perhaps the evolution of the MLS could see that change in time - here's to hoping that will be the case.

All FIFA now have to do is read this then and sort it out!

Thoughts anyone?