06 December 2010


By Dr3

So why exactly did Ronaldo win the Ballon D’or for 2002? Just when I thought I figured them out, I was reminded of just how oblivious I was to everything. I had forgotten that their only criterion was that there are no criteria. Maybe as the narcissist in me points out, it’s their shameless attempt to get my love for the World Cup back. Maybe as the Inter-conspiracy theorist in me points out, it’s the whole I hate Inter, “Inter Merda” movement. Maybe Jack Warner votes for the Ballon D’or as well. Maybe as the Barca-Hater in me points out, it’s FIFA lauding the effervescent greatness that is Barca. Whatever it is, I accept the tyranny.

In all fairness to Messi, prior to the World Cup, minus a couple Inter games, he was unplayable and exceedingly the best player in Europe, which through some algorithm equals the world. However history had taught us that on World Cup years the equation was altered and suddenly the work of nine months was rendered void and somewhat trite. Things seemed to be following the beaten path with the contemptible snubbing of Milito, Maicon etc. from the shortlist. The sideshow of the World Cup bidding and the subsequent uproar about an unjust, shall-we-say opaque FIFA was next, until the latest snub of Sneijder. In as much as we shouldn’t just take it like a cuckold, until there is some greater reform of FIFA, unfortunately we are left to mull over what should and shouldn’t be. We are also left to rue what could have been. And of course we are forced to be thankful for whatever petty mercies the game gives to us on face value. Just like arguments for/against the introduction of new technology, the highbrows present the ever-powerful, thought provoking and moving arguments which while raising awareness of a folly, do literally nothing towards removing it. As it turns out the people in the right circles couldn’t give one shit about any sort of reform.

Football needs a Martin Luther King.

I will say though, that I am happy that Russia and Qatar won the bids. Whether through bribery or whatever else, the reality is that the entire point of a voting/bidding process was to eliminate a clear bias to the countries that should, based on resources and transportation logistics etc etc, from monopolizing hosting the World Cup. That somehow through your bid being strong, a loss represents some form of fraud is as delusional as it is narcissistic and arrogant. That you intrinsically deserve something on the basis that you are you is profoundly and scarily grandiose. No matter how outlandish the bid of the Qataris, the decision still lies with the federations. Of course a huge part of the selection is about unchartered waters, and “the road less traveled”. Why should it have been in England and not the US? How do I make a selection between two equally viable options? The questions about the decision making process while sometimes valid are infinite, such that the type of uproar that I’m seeing only points to the supercilious nature of both the English and Americans. To draw a tangent, do I write the editor about a Grad school snub? Didn’t I pay ‘so much’ for an application? Didn’t I meet the criteria? Am I not a qualified and exceptional candidate? How then can they be so audacious as to snub me?

Yo, Qatar, I'm really happy for you, and Imma let you finish, but I just got to say England’s bid is one of the best bids of all time.

Want more? Go ahead and SUBSCRIBE to Football Rehab!
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Contact Us