Like many Fifa-doubters, I was greatly looking forward to the publication of the report into the allegations of corruption during bidding for the 2018 and 2022 World Cup.

After months of uncertainty, confusion, insinuations and smears, this was the moment we would finally find out what really happened in the run-up to the 2010 vote.

How naïve of me.

Instead of the unadulterated truth we had been promised, we were instead served up a concocted meal of nonsense that stank of a cleverly orchestrated whitewash.

Not only did judge Hans-Joachim Eckert decide that both Russia and Qatar were innocent of any wrongdoings, he also managed to point a finger at the English FA for some minor irregularities in their bidding process.

Just to put that into perspective, the English FA cooperated fully with the Fifa investigation and provided all documentation that was requested. Russia, on the other hand, were unable to provide any documentation because their bid team’s rented computers had been returned.

How pathetic.

Essentially we have a situation where Fifa investigates itself, picks and choses which bits of evidence to consider and then finds itself innocent. And, as a bonus, even manages to find a way of pinning a little bit of blame on the English.

Luckily for those of us who do want the truth to come out, another man who found Eckert’s report fundamentally flawed was none other than the man who lead the investigation, American lawyer Michael Garcia.

Within hours of Fifa issuing the report and declaring the entire episode closed, Garcia issued a statement questioning its findings, saying it “contains numerous materially incomplete and erroneous representations of the facts and conclusions”.

I fail to see how it could get more awkward for Fifa than when the very man they paid to investigate the problem is essentially saying they are misrepresenting his findings.

This is starting to look like the biggest cover-up in the history of sport.

The only solution to this whole sorry mess now is for Fifa to publish Garcia’s original findings in their entirety. Not selective pieces which fit the picture they want to paint, but every single page in all its unadulterated glory.

This sorry mess has to be sorted out once and for all and it is now quite clear that all Fifa wants to do is sweep everything under the carpet. Sadly for them, they just don’t make rugs big enough.

If Sepp Blatter and his cronies refuse to issue the unabridged report, then it is about time some other authorities took this matter into their own hands, like the police, for example.

Something has to be done to bring this decrepit, corrupt, mafia-like organisation to justice.

No shame in money for medals

Some people were upset last week when Jimmy Greaves auctioned off his World Cup winners’ medal for £44,000 (€55,000).

A handful of observers suggested it was fundamentally wrong that someone should give up something so rare and sentimental just for the sake of money.

Maybe so, in the perfect world.

But just in case these people haven’t noticed, that’s not the world we live in. And it certainly wasn’t the world Greaves lived in when England won the cup in 1966.

Were David Beckham to auction off some of his medal collection to raise a few thousands pounds to spend on new tattoos, then yes, they would have a point.

But when Greaves was a player – and a damned good one at that – he didn’t enjoy the ridiculous wages footballers do today. I read last week that the most he earned during his playing career was £100 (€125) a week. To put that in context, that’s more than 2,000 times less than today’s top stars.

The only possible point this tut-tut brigade may have is that Greaves only got his World Cup medal a few years ago, because back in 1966 it was only the players on the pitch at the end of the final who got a medal.

A campaign to award the rest of World Cup winning squads winners medals finally got through to Fifa in 2007, and Greaves picked up his medal in 2009, 43 years late.

So yes, it would have been nice for him to hang on to it that bit longer. But if the man himself (who never campaigned for his retrospective medal it must be pointed out) believes that at 74 he would be better served by cash-in-hand than medal-on-mantelpiece, who on earth is anyone else to judge?

It’s not like he is going to squander the money on women and fast cars like modern players do. He will probably pass it on to his children and grandchildren. Maybe go on a holiday. Or pay some bills.

So good luck to the man. I only wish it had sold for 10 times what it did.

Rooney must do better

Barring any unforeseen circumstances or outrageous twists of fate, Wayne Rooney will have won his 100th England cap last night at Wembley against Slovenia.

For any player of any nationality, that is a huge milestone. The century club is, by its very nature, reserved for the very best players on the planet. There are only eight others who have hit three figures for England, for example.

However, without taking anything away from Rooney’s achievement, I think it has to be said that he has yet to live up to his potential in an England shirt.

During his previous 99 appearances there have been glimpses of the real Rooney, the player who can change games with his undoubted skill.

But more often than not he has failed to reproduce his club form for his country, which is probably something the man himself would admit.

All Fifa wants to do is sweep everything under the carpet. Sadly for them, they just don’t make rugs big enough

Fair enough, at times the quality of the players around him has not been up to scratch.

Even so, a player with his incredible talents should have done a lot more for his country in terms of influencing matches and winning games.

Luckily for Rooney he has reached this milestone at the relatively young age of 29. Not only does that mean he has every chance of getting close to the 150 mark, it also means he has plenty of games left to show the world what he is truly capable of in an England shirt.

Your say

Looks like my thoughts last Sunday on Brendan Rodgers’ weakened Champions League line-up got your juices flowing.

“What utter nonsense you wrote in today’s paper. Rodgers didn’t show any sort of disrespect by fielding his reserves against Real Madrid, all he did was make a decision he believed was in the best interests of the team he is paid to run.

“The Real game was one Liverpool were unlikely to win so he made the decision to leave out some of his bigger star players for a home match against Chelsea which we had more chance of taking points out of.

“Managers are paid to take difficult decisions and, whether or not this one turned out to be right, he did what he thought was in the best interest of the club.” James Azzopardi, e-mail.

“You are absolutely correct about Brendan Rodgers. Liverpool teams, or any other English teams for that matter, don’t surrender important matches. It is just not the way they do things. They fight to the death and often that means they come out on top in encounters like the one in question.

“I am an Arsenal supporter and I have no love for Liverpool but I was ashamed on their behalf when I saw the team that was being played. To me it suggests that Rodgers has a small-minded view of the team he is running and is not aware of their history.” S. Nolan, e-mail.

“As usual, your article was excellent, constantly perceptive and irrepressibly witty, and backed up by reasoned, convincing arguments.

“You did well to excoriate Rodgers for his ‘inexcusable’ decision to choose a second-string side and thus brandishing a white flag before the start of ‘hostilities’. A most un-British attitude that certainly didn’t go down well with Liverpool fans and neutrals; of course, I’m not including Manchester United fans among the latter.

“Regarding your delightful nugget about the hapless Lee Clark, his penchant for self-flagellation makes him a closet masochist rather than a ‘closet sadist’.” Frank Muscat, Gozo, e-mail.

sportscolumnist@timesofmalta.com
Twitter: @maltablade