The Lost Legacy Fund: Fifa Still Owe South Africa R550m After Record World Cup

One year after the World Cup’s big kick-off at Soccer City, South Africans are still waiting for any sign of the £50million (R550million) promised by FIFA’s 2010 Legacy Programme.

While recently re-elected president Sepp Blatter glides serenely into a fourth term in charge boasting of FIFA’s record £1.24bn (R12billion) profit from a superb 2010 tournament in the Rainbow Nation, the money he promised as a legacy after Africa’s first World Cup – which FIFA said would benefit grass roots football as well as education, health and social projects – remains unpaid.

Fund spokesman Greg Fredericks confirmed: "None of the £50million has been spent - not one cent. The money is still in Zurich. The delay is simply down to the amount of time it takes to establish legally recognised bodies for handling this amount of money."

Blatter, 75, unveiled his much-hyped fund in December 2010, insisting: "We always said the first World Cup on African soil should leave a lasting legacy. We trusted South Africa and that trust was well founded.

“Fifa are not a circus where we pitch our tent and remove them when the event is over. Fifa will leave a lasting legacy for the youth of South Africa thanks to this successful World Cup.

"This fund is also a reward for South Africans for having been such great hosts. We always said that the first World Cup on African soil should leave a lasting sports and social legacy. This trust is yet another concrete achievement in this area."

Although the £60m fund, administered by accountants Ernst and Young, is reserved for a wide range of public benefit initiatives, Blatter confirmed that only £10m had been actually been used - to build the extravagant South Africa Football Association (SAFA) building next to the Soccer City, where Spain beat Holland to lift their first World Cup last July.

South African president, Jacob Zuma said at the time: "We wanted a World Cup that would contribute to social cohesion and national pride that would enhance African solidarity and improve the country's global reputation. Our expectations were exceeded.

"Now remains the difficult but most important task of ensuring a lasting legacy and to build world-class national teams both at youth and senior level. This legacy trust is an important contribution towards that goal."

With FIFA still reeling over bribery claims surrounding Blatter’s unopposed re-election and the decision to give Qatar the 2022 World Cup, Britain’s best selling tabloid The Sun quotes shadow Culture, Media and Sport Secretary Ivan Lewis as saying: "This is another example of poor leadership. South Africa faces many challenges and FIFA should release the money as a matter of urgency."

Labour MP Michael Dugher added: "FIFA is a shameful shambles. It made a vast sum from South Africa and has a duty to plough that money back as soon as possible."

The High Court has to rubber-stamp the setting up of a trust to decide how to distribute the remaining cash. Best estimates predict a further five-month wait for any pay-out from the Legacy fund – while the cash remains in FIFA’s Swiss bank accounts gaining interest.

The Sun also quotes lawyer Richard Spoor - representing locals in Matsafeni, where the 41,000-seater Mbombela Stadium was built on land belonging to the local people – as saying: "Even now there's no adequate water supply and the living conditions are totally unsanitary.

"The roads are unpaved and there's no proper sewage system. The conditions are unhealthy and frankly quite deplorable."

Who on earth is Neal Collins (nealcol on Twitter)? See www.nealcollins.co.uk.

A Year on from WC2010, Has the Rainbow Nation Lost It's Pot of Gold?

We’re nearly a year on from the World Cup in South Africa. Africa’s finest. Africa’s first. On Saturday it will be the first anniversary of Spain’s first ever global conquest at Soccer City over the Dutch cloggers.

Widely recognised as a success on footballing fronts, the only question left to be asked is this: Just how much did it benefit South Africans financially?

This week we have heard Johannesburg’s metro council claiming they made R7 from every rand spent on the World Cup, then the luxury hotels built for the tournament complained they were lying empty.

The FNB Stadium, formerly known as the 90,000-capacity Soccer City, claim they are going from strength to strength, while those other white elephant stadia in Port Elizabeth, Nelspruit and Polokwane lie largely idle.

A man who runs bike tours in Soweto says he’s been fully booked ever since launching his concept during WC2010 but I’ve just heard a mother claim her talented young lad can’t find a junior football club to play for in the Pretoria area.

For every South Africa claiming it was the best thing to happen to the Rainbow Nation, we hear another on the radio phone-ins claiming the nation has been ripped off. Who’s right? Can we ever be sure?

The single dominant fact, as far as one can glean from the limited information available, is that FIFA made a record $4.3billion from the event, though as we shall see, that figure varies and may just be for public consumption.

Let’s switch to pounds sterling for a simple profit-loss analysis. And it makes uncomfortable reading. According to London’s Daily Telegraph, South Africa recouped just £323m on the £3bn it spent on the event. FIFA may be laughing. South Africans should be sobbing. Bitterly.

While the World Cup unquestionably helped to boost the image of South Africa and the so-called Dark Continent in general, the Telegraph insists: “Financially it turned out to be a major disappointment”. Construction costs for venues and infrastructure amounted to £3 billion (€3.6 billion), and the government expected increased tourism would help to offset these costs to the amount of £570 million (€680 million). However, only £323 million (€385 million) were actually taken in as just over 309,000 foreign fans came to South Africa, well below the expected 450,000.

Even the little men, the local vendors around the stadium, had to disappear for six weeks – or cough up a registration fee of R60,000 (approximately to $7,888).

Michael Defteros, managing director of Headline Leisure Management who ran stadium concessions for FIFA, admits: "We didn’t make what we’d budgeted for, or hoped for. But it was a once-in-a-lifetime experience. And thankfully, we didn’t lose any money."

Optimists (particularly a report in the respected Economist magazine) suggest South Africa recouped a projected total in “direct economic value for GDP” of approximately $21.3 billion.

But given the Telegraph’s figures, published last December, unless FIFA make a monumental u-turn (perhaps the opera singer and new FIFA monitor Placido Domingo can recommend this to his president Sepptic Blatter) and offer President Jacob Zuma a share of the revenue, South Africa will make a huge loss on the deal. Can that be right?

A tournament which ran with barely a glitch, which avoided comfortably the expected pitfalls of crime, poisonous snakes, earthquakes, traffic jams and politics trumpeted by the European (and largely British) press, began and finished with glorious ceremony and gave Spain their first ever World Cup.

Okay, not everyone liked the plastic vuvuzela trumpets unique to South Africa football, but hey, nobody’s perfect. And they sold like hot-cakes.

Some might say a positive judgement was confirmed by the events of March 3, 2011, when FIFA announced they had earned $4,189 billion dollars in the financial period from 2007 to 2010.

President Blatter, re-elected for a fourth successive term without opposition last week, told worldsoccer.com: "I am the happiest man to announce that the World Cup in South Africa was a huge, huge financial success for everybody, for Africa for South Africa, for FIFA.

"For the first time in FIFA's four-year accounts we are over four billion dollars."

When Blatter took over the running of the global football body in 1998, they were in less secure financial straits. But FIFA, a non-profit association under Swiss law, has blossomed since Blatter, now 75 and set to preside until 2015, took over the reins from Brazilian Joao Havelange in 1998.

According to their deputy secretary general and financial director Markus Kattner, they now have a surplus of $631 million.

And he says 87 percent of FIFA’s revenue, that’s $3.655 billion dollars, were earned from the 2010 World Cup in South Africa.

The World Cup doesn’t just earn from ticket sales and franchise rights around the stadia. The bulk of the money comes from global broadcasting rights and and marketing or sponsorship contracts. Adidas, Visa, Emirates Airlines and Coca-Cola, all critical of the current state of FIFA before Blatter’s one-man election last week, are among the major players.

Kattner added: "The sale of television and marketing rights was more successful than expected.”

Four months after awarding the 2018 World Cup to Russia and, controversially, the 2022 event to tiny Qatar – but two months before suspending Qatar’s Mohamed Bin Hammam for corruption – Blatter told us: "We are very proud we delivered the World Cup to Africa. For the first time our turnover in one year has been more than one billion dollars.

"The market trusted South Africa.”

But should South Africa have trusted FIFA? Jerome Valcke, the FIFA secretary general who forged a strong personal relationship with South Africa’s Danny Jordaan from what I saw of the pair of them last year, admits FIFA did even better in 2010 than they did in highly-developed Germany four years before.

He said: "Commercially it has been a success, we have increased our income by 50 percent since 2006 in Germany to 2010 in South Africa."

But Valcke insists the profits would be invested in African football. He said 80 percent of countries in Africa "would not have football" were it not for Fifa's funding. "If we don't have money, it means football will collapse."

He said, with more justification, FIFA received a lot of criticism for "taking over South Africa", including allegations that the World Cup was "just about money". Valcke’s verdict: "It is to protect football."

Yes, that smooth Frenchman Valcke. The man who said in that infamous “private” email last month: “Qatar cannot buy the FIFA presidency like they bought the World Cup.”

The Economist magazine offers this perspective. They reckon the World Cup alone grew the South African economy by an “astonishing” extra 0.5%, quoting Grant Thornton, a firm of accountants, who predicted overall 2010 growth of 3 percent.

Those slightly less than expected thousands of World Cup fans came, saw and enjoyed, staying on average for 18 days, attending five matches and spending R30,200 (around $4,000) each.

They say the total effect on South Africa’s economy was around R93 billion ($12.4 billion).

But hold on, FIFA is responsible only for the prize money paid to the teams along with the cost of their travel and preparation, which amounted to just $279m in Germany, where the tournament last took place, in 2006. Four years on, while raising the prize money 60 percent to $420 million, FIFA said it would contribute an extra $100m to ensure that all the facilities are ready in time.

And that’s it. Cash from television and marketing rights all go to FIFA, so does the money from ticket sales and franchise profits. South Africa had no way of checking exactly how much was leaving the country.

Potential World Cup hosts have to agree, when bidding for a World Cup, to give FIFA the right to ship foreign currency around the country untouched, untaxed, uncounted. Great when FIFA is based in Switzerland and the president is a Swiss national with access to those desperately confidential Swiss bankers.

Citi, the research arm of Citibank, said FIFA’s profit in Germany came to a far lower $1.8 billion, equivalent to 0.7 percent of South Africa’s GDP. FIFA say they will recycle much of that money into football development worldwide. But nothing goes to South Africa, despite spending an estimated at $5.29bn on stadiums, airports, motorways, accommodation, infrastructure and security.

Those profit and loss guys at Grant Thornton say South Africa spent R33.6bn, plus another R20bn on the Gautrain. They add: “Has it put us in insurmountable debt? No. Should we do it again? It’s clever to go for the Commonwealth Games next. They are a bit smaller than the Olympics, and a good test and preparation for a possible Olympics at less cost.”

More than 3.1 million people attended the 64 games, the third highest figure behind the United States in 1994 and Germany in 2006.

Some six million people watched the games in public viewing areas around the world.

FIFA said the average television audience in Spain for the final was a record 15.6 million.

Jordaan, the local force behind the World Cup, said the tournament "was an incredible moment, a dream has come true...we are very, very happy and very proud to be Africans and South Africans."

Jordaan did a great job. He deserves a crack at the CAF presidency, perhaps even the FIFA job once Blatter eventually fades in 2015, if UEFA’s Michel Platini opts out.

But how proud should South Africans be of a tournament which may have cost the Rainbow Nation their fabled pot of gold?

In a fascinating paper called World Cup Economics: What Americans Need to Know about a US World Cup Bid, Dennis Coates, PhD, Professor of Economics at the University of Maryland Baltimore Count reckons: “A study of the 1994 World Cup hosted by the United States found substantial lost output, with the final result showing that the pre-World Cup predictions were up to $13 billion off-target. Hopefully, this report will get politicians, economists, sports fans and all Americans demanding answers.

“The existing evidence of negative economic impact from other World Cups, combined with the self-interested motivation of the Bid Committee members and the lack of disclosure of the economic impact study all point to the conclusion that the US taxpayers are better off saying no to an expensive and secretive World Cup bid.”

There it is, neatly summed up in a couple of paragraphs. The only people who profit from a World Cup? FIFA and their “self interested” executives.

We may have to wait ages for a real profit and loss account of the 2010 World Cup. We may never really know how much it really helped the country, FIFA’s Swiss bank accounts are hardly open to public scrutiny.

But a year on from Soccer City’s finale, we have to ask: Apart from Bafana Bafana rising from No90 to No38 in the world and leading their African Nations qualifying group with Egypt a continent adrift, has the 2010 World Cup really profited the Rainbow Nation?

And will Russia 2018 and Qatar 2022 benefit the world game... or just FIFA? I guess you know what I think.

Sepp Blatter: FIFA's re-elected emperor has clothes, but no moral fibre

Plain sailing resumes in the Sepp Blatter FIFAdom. Just about all of Zurich’s 208 representatives, three of them suspended, gathered to ease their president through stormy seas and on to a serene fourth term.

Emperor Sepptic, with clothes but no moral fibre, emerges to tell us he was “the captain of the ship”, and he would steer that stricken vessel to safety.

He’ll change the way World Cups are awarded, he’ll make FIFA so transparent we’ll be able to see right through it. As if we don’t already.

All smiles today, not like Monday night’s “elegance and respect” ranting at the world’s media. No waving of the FIFA Ethics book. This paid-up audience was his. He waffled on for ages, saying nothing, reassuring those worried executives at Adidas, Emirates Airlines and Visa. When sponsors like that get uptight, Blatter goes in to top gear, even at the ripe old age of 75.

More talk of this Ethics place. Has he ever been to Chelmsford on a Friday night?

Of course Uncle Josep was enjoying himself today. He’d just seen attempts to unseat his sizeable bottom from the football’s hottest seat fail, with a little help from what FIFA watchers might call “the little big guns”.

England’s David Bernstein was shot down in flames by Haiti, Congo, Benin and Cyprus. Hardly the big names of football or the global political stage, but important here, where money makes the ball go round.

Bernstein had done his best to satisfy the angry folks at home. After the suspended Jack “Pirates of the Caribbean” Warner had leaked FIFA big-shot Jerome Valcke’s email - the one which said “Qatar might have bought the World Cup but they can’t by the FIFA Presidency” Bernstein had quite reasonably requested a postponement of today’s one-man election.

While Germany’s Theo Zwanziger called for a review of the awarding of the 2022 World Cup to Qatar, Bernstein (with a little help from arch-democrat and self-made-man Prince William in the tabloids) called for a delay, presumably so somebody more stiff-upper-lipped could have a tilt at Blatter.

Bernstein received a smattering of polite applause before the mighty voices of Haiti, Benin, Congo and Cyprus put him back in his place. “Undemocratic”, they said, “Destabilising”, “Let’s all pull together”. That sort of bunkum. Forget Ethics or Middlethex.

And then came Argentina. Never England’s greatest allies (google Malvinas and/or Hand Of God), their bloke Julio Grondona insisted: "We always have attacks - mostly with lies and with the support of journalism which is more busy lying than telling the truth."

Yup. Lies. That’s why the Sun in London this morning ran the classic “Despot the difference” with pictures of Blatter and Ghadaffi.

That’s why two executive committee members – Warner and Mohamed Bin Hammam, who so controversially “bought” that World Cup for Qatar in 2022 – are suspended.

Wasn’t Bin Hammam the one who was supposed to be competing against Blatter extending a reign which started in 1998, when Lionel Messi was a tiny young thing?

Cleary, we must all be wrong. An attempt to change the agenda failed miserably, with just two absentions (probably England and Scotland) and three suspensions to mar the unanimous vote.

But efforts to delay the actual crowning of Blatter soon failed too. This time 17 countries backed England's call and another 17 abstained. Progress. But nowhere near the 75 percent support needed to delay Blatter’s fourth presidency. A landslide 172 delegates voted for Blatter’s coronation (and continued pocket lining for the tiny nations).

Not your fault, Mr Bernstein. Like the Eurovision song contest, England are viewed as arrogant colonial bullies, and in football the envy shown towards the almighty English Premier League causes real resentment among the smaller nations.

And of course, the 2018 World Cup bid saw England garner just one real vote. After all those appearances by the hard-working, family-businessman Prince William and his humble pal Baron David Beckham. Russia ran away with it of course, despite the technical difficulties of travelling vast distances between stadia and the huge cost of building nine new stadia.

Just like Qatar really. Australia had a perfect bid. With the Sydney 2000 Olympics and 2003 Rugby World Cup, who could doubt their credentials. But Qatar, with 12 stadia within an hour of eachother, temperatures soaring above 40 degrees and no evidence of every assembling a crowd of over 15,000 for a football match, made it.

And if you want to know what the conditions are like for workers in Qatar, try http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-30/-inhuman-conditions-overshadow-qatar-world-cup-unions-say.html

Ah, the injustice. But we little Englanders bleat too much. It will be four long years before Frenchman Michel Platini gets to make his hop from UEFA presidency to FIFA ubergruppenfuhrer.

Then the trouble really will start. Platini is no fan of the big English clubs, let alone the nation.

He wants the likes of Chelsea, Manchester City and Manchester United to cut back their debt to manageable levels, leaving Arsenal the only side standing in the top half of the Premier League. Hmm. Maybe that’s not such a bad idea.

And by then Bin Hammam and Jack Warner will be long forgotten, as will Valcke’s incriminating but “private” email).

Russia and Qatar will merrily host two difficult World Cups, FIFA will make a packet and all this will be for nought.

But it’s wrong. There is a slim chance Brazil's Ricardo Teixeira could squeeze in ahead of Platini. Me? I’d plump for Danny Jordaan, the principled, quietly-spoken brains behind South Africa 2010.

But it appears to matter little for now. Over the next four year’s Blatter will batter his bitter enemies, introducing apparent reforms and using his Swiss bank accounts to good effect.

Not a great time to be head of the FA. But not a bad time to be Haiti’s FIFA delegate.

Who the hell is Neal Collins (nealcol on Twitter)? See www.nealcollins.co.uk.

Sepp Blatter is Superman. Pass me the Krytonite, Danny Jordaan.

“Sepp Blatter is Superman.” That’s what some bloke called (deep breath) Liutauras Varanavicius told England's Daily Telegraph as he arrived in Zurich for today's FIFA Presidency vote. Lit, as I like to call him, is the president of the mighty Lithuanian Football Association.

Inside the footballing halls of power, Blatter greeted the 208 members of his footballing congress by confirming he is, by a remarkable twist of FIFA fate, the only candidate after Qatar’s suspended representative Mohamed Bin Hammam withdrew on Sunday.

Yes, Bin Hammam. The man who persuaded FIFA his tiny, overheated, oily emirate should be awarded the 2022 World Cup ahead of mighty Australia last December.

Jack Warner, the CONCACAF bloke who is also currently suspended, has blown the lid on Blatter’s over-long reign. He showed us an email from Blatter’s oily henchman Jerome Valcke which said “Qatar cannot buy the FIFA Presidency like they did the World Cup.”

Bosh. Done. Blatter’s reign must end. The decision to go ahead with Russia 2018 and Qatar 2022 must be reviewed.

Both the English and Scottish FAs earlier today called on FIFA to delay Blatter’s one-man election – but with Lithuanians and the like around, it just ain’t going to happen to Superman.

Unless Michael Platini, the head of UEFA, can be persuaded to run – or perhaps Danny Jordaan, the South African who ran the 2010 show so well - we may just have to accept another four years of Septic Blatter, 75, who has been in charge of the world game since 1998.

The FA statement insisted: “An external party should be appointed to improve governance of FIFA.”

Anti-corruption watchdog Transparency International joined the chorus, with Sylvia Schenk, their senior advisor on Sport, saying: "Free and fair elections cannot take place when there is a suspicion that voters may have been swayed. Fifa delegates know that they must clean house if their vote is to have legitimacy."

Stewart Regan, chief executive officer of the Scottish FA, said his organisation wanted the vote postponed for three to six months while there was an independent review into the matter.

He said: “Things are changing on an hourly basis so we’ll decide as close to the vote as possible about what well do with our vote.”

Delays? Independent reviews? Preposterous. Blatter would never allow it.

The sad old dictator who frantically waved his ethics booklet around when verbally savaged by journalists in Monday night’s classic press conference opened his congress last night by saying: “I thought that we were living in a world of fair play, mutual respect and discipline, and I must say this is not the case any.

“It’s no longer the case because our pyramid of Fifa is suddenly unstable on its basis and there’s a danger.”

At least he’s admitting that much. The night before he was insisting there was no crisis and telling us to be elegant and respectful.

Blatter, standing for a fourth term in his personal FIFAdom, said he would speak to delegates tomorrow, is reported to have told the English Daily Telegraph he will be telling his delegates today “about this danger that’s lurking and tell you how we can fight and react to this threat.”

But football can take guidance from that other famously troubled international sporting body, the International Olympic Committe. Their president, Jacques Rogge (pictured with Blatter above), took the chance to tell FIFA’s delegates: “Thirteen years ago we were having to face the same ordeal in the Salt Lake City case. The IOC ultimately emerged a stronger organisation, and from within. Our past calls for humility, and I will definitely not point the finger or lecture you. I’m sure FIFA can emerge stronger, and from within.”

We can only pray that happens. I'm not holding my breath.

Who the hell is Neal Collins (nealcol on Twitter)? See www.nealcollins.co.uk.

So Sepp Blatter's FIFA ARE corrupt: But we knew that six months ago

At 16.43 Greenwich Mean Time on December 2, when Qatar were granted the 2022 World Cup, Sepp Blatter’s FIFA were exposed as corrupt.

It’s taken six months, but today, with president Sepp Blatter teetering and his Qatari rival Mohamed Bin Hammam suspended, the end is finally nigh.

Yup, all that time to realise FIFA care more about money than football.

In truth, we knew that the moment oil-rich minnows Qatar were given the hosting rights to the World Cup. As I said at the time, how can you award the World Cup to a tiny nation with plenty of money but no sense? A country 6,000 square kilometres smaller than Swaziland which has never qualified for the tournament?

Just what was the attraction? It’s too hot to play football in Qatar in June and July. You aren’t allowed a beer while you watch. You certainly wouldn’t recommend the place to your gay friends. But then they have no fans to speak of; alcoholic, homosexual or otherwise.

Qatar? Highest per capita production in the world but no footballing tradition. Currently ranked 92 in the world. All 12 “air-conditioned” stadiums would have been built within an hour of each other in the 163rd largest “nation” in the world. Then taken down and sent to poorer nations. Aaaah!

Oh, and like most of their oily neighbours, they’ve had an undemocratic royal family in charge for centuries. We don’t know about democracy protests in Qatar over the past few months. Al Jazeera wouldn’t dare mention in.

So how does a nation like that get the World Cup? Now we know. Pure corruption. Quite rightly this morning, independent Australian senator Nick Xenophon has demanded FIFA pays back the £29.6m they spent bidding for the 2022 World Cup.

The Socceroos had a great case. Not too hot, beers allowed, queers allowed, democracy reigns, successful Olympics in 2000, great Rugby World Cup in 2003. And it would have taken football’s greatest show Down Under for the first time ever.

Xenophon told various sources: "It appears corrupt and highly questionable behaviour goes to the core of FIFA. Australia spent almost $46m on a bid we were never in the running for.

"Now we hear that bribes may have been made to fix the result for who will head up FIFA."

May have been? That’s an understatement. I said weeks before the announcement, on South Africa’s 702 radio, England’s BBC radio 5, Sky News, Supersport and on my website and in dozens of newspapers, that Russia and Qatar were nailed on as hosts. Blatter would go where the money is. No question.

Today FIFA’s notorious representative from the CONCACAF region, Jack “Pirates of the Caribbean” Warner offers this email from Jerome Valcke, the oily-tongued FIFA general secretary: " Mohamed Bin Hammam [the Qatar FA chief] thought you can buy FIFA as they bought the World Cup."

Bin Hammam – suspended from FIFA over accusations of bribery and recently (last Sunday) withdrawn from the race to replace fuhrer, sorry President, Sepp Blatter at the helm - responded by saying: "I don't know why Valcke has said that. If I was paying money for Qatar you also have to ask the 13 people who voted for Qatar."

Too right. But while we wait to hear from them, Valcke insists his e-mail to Warner was intended to remain "private" and desperately tried to talk his way out of a corner, telling the BBC: "Warner sent me an email asking if I want that Bin Hammam to run for Fifa president, he said that I should ask Bin Hammam to pull out."

So what? Valcke has admitted the 2022 World Cup was “bought”. That’s enough. Case closed.

Blatter, 75, is seeking a fourth term in charge of the global footballing organisation he has run without serious opposition since 1998 amid continual allegations of bribery and dictatorship. Today, FIFA confirmed its one-man election will go ahead, as scheduled, on Wednesday.

Sounds a bit like a Qatari election that. As long as your surname is Al Thani, you can go for the top job.

Trinidad and Tobago government minister Warner, who is president of the North, Central American and Caribbean confederation (Concacaf), is – like Hammam – suspended from FIFA over allegations of bribery.

He said: “You don't have to believe me, you don't have to like me, nobody has to eat with me, drink with me or sleep with me but Jesus Christ, take the truth when you see it

"I look on the suspension as the worst form of justice by any sporting organisation.

"They came premeditated, they weren't prepared to listen, they were hand-picked to do a task and they did just that.

"The guys were hand-picked by Blatter. A kangaroo court would be a decent thing to say.”

Warner has also accused Blatter of making a gift of computers and an unauthorised $1m (£607,000) to his fellow CONCACAF officials. He added ominously to a Sky News reporter colleague: “The email is child’s play. There’s plenty more to come.”

Surely now, with the USA’s FIFA representative Chuck Blazer blowing the whistle alongside Warner, Qatar must stand down as hosts.

Luckily, FIFA (unlike Qatar) is a democracy. Blatter can’t possibly serve a fourth term. Wednesday’s election must be called off. It’s clearly not right. Not with Warner’s Valcke email on show. But I’m not holding my breath. Even Blazer thinks the farcical election should go ahead. On Sky News looking flustered, he says he feels betrayed by Warner, his relationship has broken down. The big beardy man says Blatter is okay, Qatar’s hosting is an “independent issue”.

For FIFA and Blatter, credibility is no longer an issue. We knew that last December. Like so many global sporting organisations, it stinks.

How fair is football: Match fixer was working within a mile of Wembley

Individuals from SIX national football associations are being investigated after a convicted match-fixer was found operating from a base near Wembley Stadium.

Wilson Raj Perumal, from Singapore, has been probed by Interpol and FIFA over his ability to influence the results of international and club matches around the world over the past three years.

The Daily Telegraph reports Perumal, arrested in Finland in February, had been working within a mile of the “home of football” in London, where the Champions League final will take place between Barcelona and Manchester United on May 28.

Fifa’s head of security Chris Eaton, a former Interpol operative said: “England is the home of football and London is a global financial centre so it does not surprise me that the financial aspects of this activity lead to London.

“The threat from match-fixing to the integrity of the global game is significant.

“Interviews with those involved have told us that that fixers can spend upwards of $300,000 (£182,000) to stage a friendly international and they do that with the expectation of a significant profit margin. Our information is that we are talking about tens of millions of dollars in profit from each successful fix.”

In 2009, Perumal was named as having arranged a number of games played by Zimbabwe in south-east Asia, some of which the Zimbabwe FA believe were fixed.

He was also behind the international friendly between Bahrain and “Togo” last year when the African side lost 3-0... and turned out to be a band of disparate players rather than the Togan national squad (pictured above).

Perumal is currently on remand in Finland after being arrested on February 25. He was picked up by immigration officers but is now under investigation for his involvement in alleged match-fixing in the Finnish domestic league.

FIFA and Interpol are believed to have evidence casting doubt over the result of nearly 300 matches over the past three years with referees being influenced by payments of £6,000 (R66,000) with Perumal’s men then allegedly tipping off gamblers in the Asian betting syndicates.

The London base provides “cover for the flow of funds through legal and illegal channels” according to the Paul Kelso’s special report in the Telegraph yesterday.

The FIFA under-17 and under-20 World Cups, due to be held during the summer in central America, could both be influenced.

Eaton added: “We have admissions from those we are focusing on that they have been planning to target younger players at the under-17 and under-20 level.

“That is enough to make me concerned that we need to put preventative measures in place.”

The Fifa investigation centres on Raj Perumal, who until February operated from a flat in a new apartment block in the Wembley City development, within sight of the distinctive arch of the national stadium.

Perumal, convicted for match-fixing in 1995, has also been found guilty of “theft and violence” in Singapore – he fled there in July last year after he was sentenced to five years’ “corrective training” in jail for driving his car over a police officer.

He is being held in Finland on suspicion of bribing players to fix matches and in connection with an attempt to pay $300,000 to a Finnish club. Eleven players have been arrested and face charges.

Perumal’s flat, in the Quadrant Court development at Wembley, was raided by officers from the Metropolitan Police in March following a request from the Finnish police.

The flat was empty when police raided it. Chandra Ratna, an associate of Perumal, told The Daily Telegraph that he had been asked to clear the flat by Perumal and said that he had thrown its contents away.

Telephone records seized by Finnish police are understood to reveal that Perumal has a “wide network” of contacts in world football – including 60 listed contacts in the UK including current and former international players.

High on the list of suspicious games are two internationals held in the Turkish resort of Antalya.

All seven goals in the games between Bolivia and Latvia, and Estonia and Bulgaria, were penalties with betting patterns indicating a “fix”.

Six officials – three from Hungary and three from Bosnia - have been banned for life.

Both games were set up by Perumal’s compatriot, Anthony Santia Raj.

As Perumal languishes in Finland, Germany is preparing for sentencing in their largest ever match-fixing trial.

Ante Sapina, a Croatian jailed for bribing a German referee in 2006, is one of seven defendants charged with fixing 47 matches including games in several European leagues, the qualifying rounds of the Champions League and a World Cup qualifier.

He is expected to receive a sentence of around six years.

The Real Truth: Why Mourinho and Ronaldo will be leaving the Bernebeu

Real Madrid must surely begin the long farewell to coach Jose Mourinho and star man Cristiano Ronaldo – the world’s most expensive player – after their Champions League semi-final defeat against arch-rivals Barcelona.

The controversial couple can hardly stay at the Bernebeu after the saga of the infamous four frantic Clasicos wound to its inevitable conclusion at the Nou Camp on Tuesday night.

Even former Real owner Ramon Calderon accepts they have gone too far after the shenigans surrounding the four games between the two sides over the past fortnight. He told the BBC: “Talk like this is harmful for Real Madrid. Big clubs should not blame the referee for their mistakes or their defeats.

"We invested £400m in the last two years to be a very important and strong team so if you lose you cannot blame injuries, bad luck, referees or nothing. If you lose you have to congratulate the rival and that is all.

"What Mourinho did in terms of talking about UEFA and referees is not acceptable at all."

Just as he did at Chelsea and Inter Milan, the Special One has talked himself out of a job despite his surprise win in the Copa Del Rey against the old enemy a fortnight ago.

Quotes like these simply don’t make for a long-term retirement plan. Mourinho, who watched the second leg from his hotel room 400 yards down the road “for security reasons” fumed: “ It's clear that against Barcelona you have no chance.

"I don't know if it's the publicity of Unicef [the club's shirt sponsor], I don't know if it's because they are very nice, but they've got this power.

"I don't know if it's the friendship of [Spanish football federation president Angel Maria] Villar at Uefa, where he is vice-president."

And former Manchester United star Ronaldo wasn’t holding back after a relatively peaceful 1-1 second leg draw saw Barca progress to the final at Wembley on May 28 with a 3-1 aggregate win.

Real’s iconic top scorer, threatened by a Barca fan just after half-time on Tuesday night (see picture) said: "Next year they might as well give the cup directly to Barcelona."

"The team is sad, but we knew it was an uphill battle.

"The name of the match is Mission Impossible IV. Once again it was the referee that didn't allow us to dictate the outcome. We knew we could beat Barca, but the referee didn't let us.

"Higuain's goal was good. Pique pushed me and I landed on Mascherano. He didn't used to fall to the ground in England, but he's picked up the bad habit of doing it here like everyone else.

"Those who know about football know Barca are very well protected. But you just have to live with all these injustices.""

It’s not as if Mourinho and Ronaldo don’t have a point. Higuain’s goal looked valid from where I sat and would have put the semi-final in the balance at 2-1.

Instead, the Belgian referee, surely a Waloon, judged Ronaldo to have fouled the gymnastic Mascherano as he fell under Gerard Pique’s push.

Decision after decision went the way of the diving, rolling, play-acting Catalans.

But they remain the best club side in the world – largely thanks to that little man Lionel Messi – and they are unlikely to slip up in the La Liga title race or the Champions League final as refereeing errs on the side of caution and ballet dancing.

Mourinho and Ronaldo have to accept modern football is no longer a man’s game. The tiny Messi is well protected – he had a record 12 fouls given against him on Tuesday night – and the dull Spanish World Cup winning ploy of possession and mincing is now simply the way of the softly-softly footballing world.

Given the passionate hatred between Catalan and Castillian – the Barcelona v Madrid split is a matter of historic nationalism and civil war not simply ball games – how can Mourinho or Ronaldo soldier on? How can they go through such perceived injustice against next season?

With Calderon joining the critique levelled by Alfredo di Stefano, what price on Mourinho returning to Chelsea with Ronaldo for a few billion Roman Abramovich roubles? Ronaldo needs another big money move before he hits middle age and Mourinho's defensive tactics, though they bring results, fail to live up to Madridista expectations.

At least in England’s Premier League the odd diver is booked. And nationalism counts for nothing when Manchester United face the Blues, as we will find out on Sunday.