Last week former France and Juventus legend Michel Platini secured himself a second term as head of European football’s governing body.

To be honest it wasn’t really much of a surprise considering he stood for election to the post unopposed. It would have taken an effort of Bayern Munich proportions for him to lose that one.

Since Platini has been in charge he has been a mixed bag of results.

Some of the things he has done have been progressive and intelligent, but some of the comments he has made and suggestions he has put forward have been downright daft. There doesn’t seem to be any sort of middle ground with him.

However, whatever I may personally think of his performance, I have to admit his announcement on international television rights at last week’s annual conference was a bit of a masterstroke.

Up until now each Uefa member country negotiated their own home television rights for Euro and World Cup qualifying matches.

This has meant that smaller nations, like us, have been in a situation where we were always hoping to draw big teams in order to generate additional TV revenue.

That despite the fact that drawing big teams essentially means we have less chance of getting positive results.

Under the new scheme, however, the television rights pot will effectively be shared out, meaning countries like Malta can concentrate on the football side of qualifying without having to worry about the financial side.

According to the Uefa boss, all 53 member countries have now signed up to the deal and it will come into effect from the qualifying stages of Euro 2016.

So far in his reign, Platini has not done a lot to earn my praise and I would be lying if I said I was his biggest fan.

I find his regular comments about the Premier League and its financial clout, for example, to have an uncomfortable jealous undertone to them that detracts from the fact that he is probably right.

But I have to say if Platini can pull off deals like this one, then I will certainly give him the benefit of the doubt as he continues his apprenticeship before his inevitable rise to the Fifa role.

It never rains

It’s the moment all motor racing fans have been waiting for – the day when the brakes finally come off the 2011 Formula One season.

Of course, it was all supposed to kick off a couple of weeks ago in Bahrain. But the civil unrest there has meant today’s Australian race was thrust into the limelight as the season opener.

The burning question is who is going to be leading the pack this season and it really boils down to the usual suspects with Red Bull and Ferrari certainly out in front, and maybe McLaren, Mercedes and Renault their nearest rivals.

What I have found really interesting in the build-up to this season is not so much news about the cars and their drivers but the idea of introducing artificial rain into the racing equation.

F1 godfather Bernie Ecclestone is standing by his suggestion that it would be a wonderful addition to the sport because, and he has a point here, wet races are always the most exciting.

However, I would argue that part of the reason they are the most exciting is that in the wet, drivers are battling not only against each other but also against the forces of nature.

If you were to try and artificially create that sort of scenario, a bit of the magic would be lost and the whole thing would become a bit too Disneyland for my liking.

Yes, the introduction of the mechanised rain would be random and the teams wouldn’t know it was coming, but it still feels wrong for any sport to be creating its own weather.

Ironically, Ecclestone is harping on about this artificial rain plan at a time when Formula One is at its most exciting. Last season the title went down to the wire, and this year we could have more of the same as the number of quality cars on the circuit seems to be growing.

A few years ago, maybe Ecclestone’s plan would have had more going for it when most races were just a procession. But when the sport has reinvigorated itself, why not leave well enough alone?

If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.

Every cloud…

Talking of tinkering with the weather in the name of sport: the latest update from the increasingly mad zone of the Qatar World Cup is that they are considering floating artificial clouds over the stadiums in 2022 to keep temperatures down.

These man-made monstrosities would essentially be giant, helium filled structures that would be radio controlled from the ground.

The objective would be to cast shade over the pitches and help keep the players out of direct sunlight.

While you have to admire the ingenuity of the idea, wouldn’t it just be easier to put roofs on top?

Or better still, hold the tournament in a cool, wet, naturally cloudy country where temperatures are always manageable.

Like England, for example…

Taking the Mickey

At the beginning of next month a statue of singer Michael Jackson will be unveiled outside Fulham’s Craven Cottage stadium.

And that begs an important question: why?

Fair enough, Jackson was a close friend of Fulham owner Mohammed Al Fayed.

I can also understand that Al Fayed may want to pay tribute to the singer who he describes as a true legend.

But why the heck involve a football club in the equation?

A football club that has little or no connection with the pop star in question, other than he watched one game there way back in 1999.

Al Fayed had originally planned to erect the statue outside Harrods but that plan came a cropper when he sold the world’s most famous shop last year.

So instead he decided to erect the statue of Jackson in ‘one of his iconic poses’ on the banks of the River Thames outside the football stadium.

What will Fulham fans make of all this? Initial reports suggest they are far from impressed.

And I can sympathise with them.

Traditionally clubs have erected statues of football legends who have turned out to play for them; legends who have left their mark on the history of the team.

Not some singer with a strange and murky past.

The whole thing just doesn’t make sense to me.

And I am fairly sure it doesn’t make sense to the fans, many of whom probably were not even keen on the singer’s music.

As ideas go, I can only think of one appropriate word to describe it.

Bad.

sportscolumnist@timesofmalta.com