At the same time, the England cricket team capped a remarkable turnaround.   From being the bottom ranked test playing nation in 1999, Andrew Strauss’s team were crowned the world’s top test nation only eleven years later following a crushing victory over India.  The win happened at Egbaston, only a few miles from the Winston Green area of Birmingham, which suffered so much devastation and tragedy.

Surely now is the time to harness the power of sporting success, such as that of the England cricket team, to help re-engage young people and ensure that the kind of violence that we saw earlier this month doesn’t happen again.  There are numerous examples of how sport has been used as an instrument to provide focus and meaning to lives previously devoid of both.

Sport generally, and cricket in particular,  has displayed an extraordinary capacity to transform lives.  The tremendous ‘Fire In Babylon’ showed how cricket helped bring real pride and determination to an otherwise poverty stricken West Indies in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.  You only need to look at the scenes in the film from Brixton and Vauxhall after the West Indies’ routing of England in 1984 to see the way that cricket has helped pull some of the communities most affected by the disorder together in the past.

Examples from South Africa, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh illustrate the transformative power of sport.  There’s even an example of former Compton gang members in the States who have seen cricket as their salvation.  Boxing and football have also given people a route out of poverty and, in some cases, rescued people from a life of gang culture and crime.  Sport not only provides real focus – it also instils the importance of discipline and teamwork.  In many cases, sport can enable people to be proud of their achievements, providing a sense of self worth and engagement with society that had previously been missing.

Policy makers need to consider how sport can be used more effectively as a force for the good in deprived areas.  Sport in schools is particularly important, but there is also more that can be done to provide the right facilities to harness the power of sport.  It’s unbelievably that Brixton, for example, rich in cricketing culture from both the Caribbean and England, has only one cricket pitch – the Oval.

Government has a big role to play in this, but so do employers and philanthropists (the cricket and football clubs in the North East were often built and kept up by the local mine of steelworks).  Perhaps now is the time for more of the richest people in society to give a little back by giving philanthropic donations to help build sports facilities for some of the poorest in society.  Some of the richest in society should be encouraged to give money towards exciting sporting projects, funding cricket and football pitches, boxing academies, BMX and bike tracks and so on that would give a new lease of life to some deprived areas.

Nobody is suggesting that sport is some kind of panacea for social ills.  However, it does have an important part to play.  Time and time again, the transformative effect of sport in poorer communities has been clear for all to see.  We should use the fact that England are now the world’s number one cricket team to inspire young people from deprived backgrounds and help reengage many young people in society.

This post has also appeared at www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

Only this weekend, allegations have been flying around about the probity of a variety of FIFA members around the bizarre decision to give the 2022 World Cup to Qatar.  Lord Triesman has made a number of shocking allegations about a culture of, at best, impropriety, during the World Cup bidding process – suggesting that six Executive Committee members had asked for bribes or favours in return for World Cup votes.

Similar allegations of corruption have attached themselves to the election of President of FIFA, which has now become a walkover for Blatter.   It was alleged that Blatter’s opponent for the Presidency, Mohamed Bin Hammam, had been involved in improper practices as part of the election and that Blatter had known of the activities.  Whistleblower in this case was the USA FIFA Committee member, Chuck Blazer.   As part of the furore, an e-mail from FIFA General Secretary, Jerome Valke, came to light suggesting that Bin Hamman, “thought you can buy Fifa as they [Qatar] bought the WC [World Cup]”.

After all of this, Sepp Blatter appeared at a solo press conference this afternoon.  He carried all the conviction of Comical Ali, during the Iraq War, when he suggested that football was not in crisis and went on to almost suggest that the style of media reporting was the only real issue affecting FIFA.  It was a shocking example of the head of a major organisation placing his head firmly, and ostrich like, in the sand.  In one weekend, FIFA have shown that the world’s favourite game is being thoroughly let down by its administrators.

FIFA have completely failed to respond to the allegations of impropriety and corruption.  They have utterly failed to consider proper reform of a system that places the power about which nation will host one of the world’s richest sporting events in the hands of a handful of individual.  They have shown little inclination to address a structure that results in a leadership that is completely out of touch with football supporters around the world, from the issue of corruption to the issue of goal line technology.  No real effort has been made to create any sense of transparency around the gilded, mysterious world of FIFA, its decision making and its Executive Committee.  In effect, Blatter has flipped the bird to his critics and hoped that would resolve his problems.

This is not a situation that can go on forever.  It is rapidly a situation that is becoming intolerable.  Football and football supporters deserve so much better than the rotten state of FIFA.  If action is not taken quickly to radically reform FIFA, then the individual Football Associations that really care about tackling corruption and giving good governance to the game should take the situation into their own hands.

FIFA is quickly becoming an organisation that is beyond redemption.  It is incumbent on people in the game to devise a programme of radical reform about how football is governed at an international level.

You can follow David on Twitter @djskelton

When I was growing up, the Cup Final was one of the great national events.  People talked about it for weeks beforehand.  It was the only football match happening on final day and was very much the crowning, dominating climax to the football season.  It dominated the media and was even shown on both BBC and ITV.  A ticket for the Cup Final was like gold dust.  So many of our shared national memories involve famous Cup Final moments (including Sunderland’s famous win in 1973).  The walk down Wembley Way, the singing of Abide With Me, the teams with their specially tailored suits for the occasion all meant Cup Final day was a huge day in the national consciousness.

It is Cup Final day today and it would be fair to say that so many people haven’t even noticed.  It is far from being the last day of the season and, scandalously, the FA Cup Final has to share the stage with four Premier League games – including the game in which Manchester United could win the league title.  Only two years after the FA Chief Executive said that showing the FA Cup on the BBC had helped to resurrect the competition, the FA decided to sell the rights to ITV and Setanta – meaning it moved further from the forefront of the national mind.

The FA have managed to tarnish their crown jewel.  They have turned the FA Cup Final into just another game and have hugely devalued its importance in the country.  Today’s game may well be a cracker but it certainly isn’t going to bring the country together as it did only a decade or so ago.  The Sports Minister, Hugh Robertson, has described football as “the worst governed sport in Britain.”  By its ruinous devaluation of the FA Cup Final, the Football Association has rather proven his point.  The FA should hang their heads in shame.

As the repercussions from the mid-term elections become clear, a new poll discussed at the Huffington Post shows quite how detached the Tea Party are from mainstream opinions and how this might cause trouble for the GOP in 2012.  My money is still on an easy Obama victory in two years time.

Hopefully an easy victory is also what the England cricket team will achieve down under.  The first test starts this evening and, in his blog, Jonathan Agnew predicts that we will win 3-1.  The BBC also have a helpful guide to the best way to watch as much cricket as possible and still to function!

Regular and high quality sport in schools is linked to success in a wide range of public policy areas.  As a friend said to me today, a school sport policy is also a health policy, an education policy, a community cohesion policy, a crime fighting policy and a policy that results in more rounded young people.

Health outcomes are hugely affected by sport in school – at a time when obesity and poor health are real social problems, regular and quality sport in schools is needed now more than ever.  Pupils who participate regularly in school sport gain valuable life skills – learning about teamwork, fair play and harnessing competitive instincts.  Pupils who participate in sport are also more likely to succeed academically.  And if we really believe in the Big Society, surely sport has to play a massive role in it.  Can there be more of an embodiment of the Big Society than the teachers or volunteers who sacrifice their time for after school sports clubs or the sport that gives young people a goal and a focus in life.  Sport in schools should have a huge role in creating a big and a good society – it should be treasured and protected.

A society whose young people are active in sport is a healthier country, a fitter country, a better educated country and a happier country.  A country in which people who attend state schools have as much access to top class sports facilities as children whose parents can afford to send them to a private school is a more civilised country.  And a country in which sport is encouraged in schools is also a more successful sporting nation.  We must not go back to the dark ages where playing fields were sold off and sport in schools was forgotten.

This decision should not be presented as about giving more power to Headteachers.  Sport in schools is too important to be treated as an optional add-on.  It has too much relevance to a great swathe of public policy areas.  Just as the Government is, rightly, focused on getting proper British history taught in schools, so it should also ensure that schools provide high quality sport for all pupils.

Proper PE provision, good sporting facilities and high quality PE teachers should be essential elements of our schools.  Whilst cuts in many areas have been properly focused on bureaucracy, that cannot be said about cuts to School Sport Partnerships.  Of course we need to encourage more competitive sport in schools, but we must be wary about throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  Cutting sport in schools, as the likes of Mike Gatting and David James warned yesterday, could have troubling long term consequences.  The Government should think again about the cuts to School Sports Partnerships.

I was amazed at how many people said to me last week that they were rooting for his opponents because they didn’t like Murray and his so-called “attitude”.  Clearly, people would prefer their tennis players to be fresh faced, “well-spoken” embodiments of middle England than sportsmen with a relentless focus on winning.   There is a reason why he has already achieved so much more than people like Jeremy Bates or Tim Henman.

We have a choice to make.  We can either expect our sportsmen to be dedicated winners, with a real eye on constant self improvement or we can expect them to have a “nice attitude.”

The Australian cricket team; Mohammed Ali; McEnroe; Phil Taylor and Eric Bristow; Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus…  The list could go on and on.  But all have been condemned at one point or another for their attitude.  And all of them are winners.

Frankly, I prefer sportsmen to have a focus on winning and constantly improving their game.  For too long, British sport had been plagued by a satisfaction with being second best.  I’m happy that somebody like Murray is utterly focused on improving his game and becoming the best.  I’m not massively bothered about what part time sports fans think about that.  When he starts winning Grand Slams, as I have no doubt he will, then his ‘attitude’ and focus on winning will have been entirely vindicated.

In contrast, last night’s results mean the other home nations now all look almost certain not to join them in South Africa.

This outcome, though far from unexpected, raises some interesting questions for politicians, not least Gordon Brown. Many from Scotland certainly make no qualms about adopting a stubborn ‘anyone but England’ attitude when it comes to the national game, some even delighting in such a position. No sooner had the final whistles blown across Europe than radio phones-ins were filled with supporters from north of the border telling tales of ’31 teams other than England’, with varying degrees of severity.

Such a response is often different for those Scots in the public eye – at least when speaking on the record. In June 2006 Scottish tennis wunderkind Andy Murray famously said he would be supporting ‘anyone but England’ in the World Cup that summer. After a widely-reported backlash from both his English fans and the press he hastily issued a statement claiming that he had ‘made a joke’ and ‘didn’t mind whether England win or lose’.

But what of Mr Brown? Our resolutely Scottish Prime Minister has absolutely no choice but to vociferously support England, regardless of what the truth might be. The potential negative feeling from enough English voters would make any other stance simply unpalatable from a political perspective. While it is unlikely we will see him donning a replica three lions on his chest (one would hope!), one question is whether Brown will go as far as suggesting that the whole country should get behind England? Such a stance could, along with his continued vocal support, prove popular amongst the type of voters to which he specifically has to appeal.

It is often said, albeit incorrectly, that in 1966 Harold Wilson benefitted electorally from a victorious England team clad in red. This time around the World Cup begins on 11^th June 2010, just over a week after the last possible moment Britain can go to the polls. Therefore it will be impossible for actual success on the field to have a bearing on the result. However, by that stage excitement from the pre-tournament build-up will have reached fever pitch. We will have to wait and see how much electoral importance Brown will attach to an event that consumes the national consciousness (south of the border at least) like no other?

Edinburgh-born Tony Blair had no problems echoing the chants of the English terraces when he proclaimed ‘Labour’s coming home’ at the Labour Party conference in 1996. Would Gordon Brown dare to attempt something similar?

The position of other politicians on the subject may also have an influence on public opinion. Back in 2006, at the same time that Andy Murray was giving his views, Scottish First Minister Jack McConnell was also criticised after he said he would not be supporting England. As an MSP such a position was far from a political own goal, quite possibly the very opposite in fact, but if such feelings are widely articulated this time around by Scots from with Labour it may allow the Prime Minister’s opponents to question the sincerity of his own statements.

While everyone is naturally entitled to their own opinion, I personally struggle to see why anybody from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland would consciously, deliberately and publicly support England’s opponents. I can quite understand why they might not go out of their way to support England, but I find the specific anti-English sentiment an anathema.

I always support Andy Murray in the tennis, Chris Hoy in the cycling and Joe Calzaghe in the boxing. If the situation was reversed and Scotland had qualified but England had not, I would happily sign up as an honorary member of the Tartan Army come next summer.

But then I’m 81% English (with Scottish and German making up the remainder). Maybe I should ask my Scottish girlfriend who she will be supporting?

For those who missed it, London was initially represented by Boris Johnson, complete with no-doubt-soon-to-be-trademark Nervous Salute Action, receiving the Olympic Flag from his Beijing counterpart.

Then we were treated to a multicoloured and occasionally hallucinogenic video montage, featuring all the things that make London recognisable to the world, if not necessarily those who live there. Animated red phone boxes, double-decker buses, umbrellas (lots of them), the London Eye and Tate Modern were all on show.

The capital’s allotted eight minutes peaked atop a bus inside the stadium with David Beckham kicking a ball into the crowd, X-Factor’s Leona Lewis singing something and an animatronically resurrected Jimmy Page strumming away. Beckham’s popularity in the Far East clearly outweighed the fact that he has never competed at the Olympics and that Britain hasn’t even had a football team at the games since 1964.

Most neutral observers would probably place the Beijing Games with Sydney at the top of a post-boycott era list. However, in his closing speech, IOC head Jacques Rogge failed to crown the event ‘The Best Games Ever’ – a compliment previously paid to all host cities except terrorist-affected Munich and Atlanta.

Inevitably, questions will be raised over whether London will be able to achieve that specific accolade, but many more questions will need to be answered first.

Can Gordon, Boris, Tessa et al work with each other and ‘Lord of the Rings’ Seb Coe, his people at LOCOG and the ODA to actually deliver the Games?

The budget for the London Games, currently £9.3bn, will be less than half what was spent in Beijing. Will that be enough for our capital to compete in the eyes of the world? Will the much-vaunted legacy and regeneration, the cornerstone of the London bid, become a reality? Who will even be in Number 10 to preside over events?

Will facets of modern London life such as binge drinking, obesity and knife crime feature? Can Boris Johnson be expected to comb his hair twice within a four year period? Are Chas and Dave playing a massive pub piano necessarily the best idea for an opening ceremony? Will Simon Cowell’s inevitable Opening Ceremony Idol do the trick?

Even those more familiar with Jeremy Thorpe than Ian Thorpe must now understand that the Olympic circus is coming to town, our town, and over the next four years everyone from Stratford and beyond will be talking about it with rapidly increasing frequency and volume.

The Ashes series of 2005 attracted a terrestrial TV audience of over 10 million.  Since the ECB sold live test match rights to Sky the audience has at times been well below one million.  That cannot be healthy for the long term future of the game.  Many of the people who tuned in to watch the Ashes series were kids attracted to the game for the first time – bringing a whole new generation to the game.  Now, at least half of people under 18 will not be able to watch test match cricket as they are in households without access to Sky.  Children that could be idolising Flintoff, Pietersen and all may be grow up without any real exposure to the game.  How can any amount of money from Sky be used to justify this criminal neglect for the health of the sport.  Terrestrial coverage, by its very nature, brings with it ‘accidental viewers’, who become suddenly hooked on this most captivating of sports.  It means that cricket can become the background to many a family summers day – exposing the heroics on the field to a new generation seeking to replicate this heroics.  The ECB’s greed means that this potential exposure is lost.  By sticking cricket coverage on to Sky Sports, only dedicated cricket watchers will probably now seek out test match coverage.  The oxygen of exposure is lost.  In a competitive sporting market, cricket should be doing all that it can to appeal to people rather than hiding behind expensive subscription channels. 

The ECB have sold the soul of the game for Murdoch’s cash. They have grabbed Sky’s money to prop up the antiquated structure of county cricket and with a wanton disregard for the long term health of the game.  As the ECB count their bounty, perhaps they will reflect for a moment that they are depriving the game of its lifeblood and knowingly preventing millions from the excitement of next year’s Ashes series.  They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.