The inspection report said Brazil is an “appropriate choice” to host the 2014 World Cup. The inspectors said Brazil has demonstrated itself to be more than capable of hosting what they called “an exceptional World Cup.”

The report was sent to the FIFA executive committee, which will announce its decision on Tuesday.

Brazil is the only candidate bidding to host football’s biggest event in 2014. FIFA has a policy of rotating the tournament among the continents. Brazil has won the world cup five times, but has hosted the tournament only once – in 1950 when it lost to Uruguay at Maracana stadium in Rio de Janeiro.

Immigration officials denied Simione Tamanisau a visa because his father-in-law is in Fiji’s military forces. Under sanctions in place following December’s coup in the South Pacific nation, members of the Fiji military and their families are banned from traveling to New Zealand.

“The goalkeeper should have the right to play,” FIFA said in a statement. The organization said it could not allow the match to take place, “in order to preserve this sporting principle as well as the competitive integrity of the qualifying campaign.”

FIFA said its request for the New Zealand government to reconsider its decision was rejected, forcing the postponement of the match in Auckland. Tamanisau was the only Fijian to be denied a visa. The efforts of New Zealand Football, the Fiji Football Association and the Oceania Football Confederation were praised for their attempts to resolve the issue.
“Football is truly a global game and to have a match involving political interference would set a bad precedent,” the OFC said in a statement on its Web site.

New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters said the decision was a “complete u-turn” by FIFA and that Football New Zealand had been assured this week that the game would go ahead as scheduled.

“Entry to another country is a privilege, and all countries retain the right to exclude individuals in accordance with their immigration policy,” Peters said. “Sporting bodies do not determine those policies.”

Fiji Football Association president Dr Sahu Khan said he planned to take the situation to the international Court of Arbitration for Sport. He was sure the court would nullify the game because it was “grossly unfair”, he told the New Zealand Herald.

According to Blatter, “it would preserve a club’s identity.” Well, as far as I can tell, the identity of a football club has always come from its supporters rather than its players. Let’s face it, as far as Arsenal fans are concerned, Liverpool is no further removed than Russia.

The Fifa president also says that it would help the development of youth players. Where on earth he comes up with this idea is beyond me.

Fewer players would go abroad and more would stay home. That’s a good thing, right? I don’t think so. More likely they would simply stay at the big clubs in their own countries. And, while it might make the top teams in the Netherlands, Portugal and other “exporting” countries more competitive, it would also maintain, if not increase, the gap between rich and poor domestically.

Countries like Brazil, Argentina and Nigeria thrive on exporting players. Is it fair to deny them the right to export one of their most prized commodities? Of course not. This whole suggestion is unwirkable and I really wonder what on earth he is thinking.

Trade barriers do not work. All that happens is that prices for domestic goods increase and the quality of those goods decreases. If the rule were introduced tomorrow in the Premier League, not only would the cost of English players increase dramatically, those English players would be facing inferior competition, and likely the game would suffer.

So, please remove your oar from the water Mr. Blatter.