AT FIRST glance, David Ginola and the late Screaming Lord Sutch may not have too much in common. Once you take into account the glossy- (though now silver) haired Frenchman’s recent decision to run for the FIFA presidency though then the comparison becomes clearer.

It seems fair to assume that the thought of actually being elected would have been equally terrifying for both of them – it’s not what they’re there to provide. (Though if you want to read about a joke candidate being elected and turning into a force for good – look up the Icelandic comedian, Jon Gnarr.) The obvious divergence between Messrs Sutch and Ginola is in the financial remuneration for their candidacy. While the former leader of the Monster Raving Loony Party regularly lost his deposit in elections up and down the country, the stylish ex-winger is being paid £250,000 by betting firm Paddy Power to run against Sepp Blatter.

While this has attracted some criticism, it’s actually pretty much the perfect satirical stunt. As soon as you open your mouth to say, “But he’s just interested in the money!” the next obvious thought dawns and it is soon clamped shut again.

We may be at the point where it’s fair to say football – and indeed the world – gets the FIFA that it deserves. What’s usually levelled at FIFA? That it represents finance over morality and that its international nature makes it almost impossible to police because of the way in which money defies borders.

Now, am I talking about football or am I talking about banking and big business in general?

The problem is that many bodies criticising FIFA lose credibility when their own motivations are examined. When people attack the awarding of the World Cup to Qatar on the grounds that a summer tournament there was never feasible yet it was the grounds on which they beat the likes of Australia in a pitch; that’s a fair point. However, if people veer into, “Why are we having the World Cup in the Middle East?” or “But if it’s held in the winter then it will affect the English Premier League” – the argument is lost.

Equally, there’s sticky ground for the English FA if they begin throwing around allegations of corruption. Certain offers to fund footballing projects or to play friendlies do seem to have been designed to court favour with other FAs … so at what point does that veer into alleged-FIFA territory?

I’ve mentioned Radio 5’s excellent World Football phone-in before in this column and I’m once more indebted to its Brazil-based correspondent, Tim Vickery, for providing a South American perspective that is all too rarely heard through the UK media.

He points out that mistrust of the Home Nations in general (but particularly the English FA) was sown through Sir Stanley Rous’ period of FIFA presidency, when the organisation failed to increase World Cup places for African nations and largely protected the hegemony of European football. By contrast, the likes of Brazil’s Joao Havelange and Switzerland’s Blatter actively sought to engage and include football’s emerging nations.

Were these efforts entirely benevolent? I would suspect not. Then again, are the cries that go up against Blatter entirely benevolent? Again, I would suspect not.

The dream would be for a genuinely forward-thinking and agenda-free candidate to emerge for the FIFA presidency. Until then though, let’s not see Ginola merely as a joke. Let’s see him as a mirror for the wider problems of global society.

Agree or disagree with what Teddy has written? You can tweet him @RossTeddyCraig or online via his website, ascottishwriter.com AT FIRST glance, David Ginola and the late Screaming Lord Sutch may not have too much in common. Once you take into account the glossy- (though now silver) haired Frenchman’s recent decision to run for the FIFA presidency though then the comparison becomes clearer.

It seems fair to assume that the thought of actually being elected would have been equally terrifying for both of them – it’s not what they’re there to provide. (Though if you want to read about a joke candidate being elected and turning into a force for good – look up the Icelandic comedian, Jon Gnarr.) The obvious divergence between Messrs Sutch and Ginola is in the financial remuneration for their candidacy. While the former leader of the Monster Raving Loony Party regularly lost his deposit in elections up and down the country, the stylish ex-winger is being paid £250,000 by betting firm Paddy Power to run against Sepp Blatter.

While this has attracted some criticism, it’s actually pretty much the perfect satirical stunt. As soon as you open your mouth to say, “But he’s just interested in the money!” the next obvious thought dawns and it is soon clamped shut again.

We may be at the point where it’s fair to say football – and indeed the world – gets the FIFA that it deserves. What’s usually levelled at FIFA? That it represents finance over morality and that its international nature makes it almost impossible to police because of the way in which money defies borders.

Now, am I talking about football or am I talking about banking and big business in general?

The problem is that many bodies criticising FIFA lose credibility when their own motivations are examined. When people attack the awarding of the World Cup to Qatar on the grounds that a summer tournament there was never feasible yet it was the grounds on which they beat the likes of Australia in a pitch; that’s a fair point. However, if people veer into, “Why are we having the World Cup in the Middle East?” or “But if it’s held in the winter then it will affect the English Premier League” – the argument is lost.

Equally, there’s sticky ground for the English FA if they begin throwing around allegations of corruption. Certain offers to fund footballing projects or to play friendlies do seem to have been designed to court favour with other FAs … so at what point does that veer into alleged-FIFA territory?

I’ve mentioned Radio 5’s excellent World Football phone-in before in this column and I’m once more indebted to its Brazil-based correspondent, Tim Vickery, for providing a South American perspective that is all too rarely heard through the UK media.

He points out that mistrust of the Home Nations in general (but particularly the English FA) was sown through Sir Stanley Rous’ period of FIFA presidency, when the organisation failed to increase World Cup places for African nations and largely protected the hegemony of European football. By contrast, the likes of Brazil’s Joao Havelange and Switzerland’s Blatter actively sought to engage and include football’s emerging nations.

Were these efforts entirely benevolent? I would suspect not. Then again, are the cries that go up against Blatter entirely benevolent? Again, I would suspect not.

The dream would be for a genuinely forward-thinking and agenda-free candidate to emerge for the FIFA presidency. Until then though, let’s not see Ginola merely as a joke. Let’s see him as a mirror for the wider problems of global society.

Agree or disagree with what Teddy has written? You can tweet him @RossTeddyCraig or online via his website, ascottishwriter.com