Sport has already played a part in Japan's recovery, with people taking shelter in local gymnasiums.

Of course, there is only so much the sympathetic words of athletes like American tennis star Andy Roddick can do. Respectful gestures, like the wearing of black armbands or the staging of a minute’s silence, are symbolic for the victims but offer no solution.

But then athletes, like the rest of us, are in an impossible situation when responding to national tragedies.

"It's very difficult to put yourself in the place of a person who has lost everything and is looking for their loved ones amid all that debris," alpine skier Didier Cuche said recently.
That said, while it's tough for athletes to empathize they can obviously sympathize, and sport is a past master in matching kind words with good deeds.

And make no mistake; sport does have a role to play in assisting with Japan’s recovery. Clearly, there’s the fund-raising aspect. We’ve already heard of a number of sporting initiatives that will generate cash and maintain awareness of Japan’s plight.

But there’s also the less tangible way in which sport can help, because in most countries sport is about much more than wins and losses, it is part of the culture.

Indeed, last week, its healing power was noted by the general secretary of the Japanese Football Association, Kozo Tashima, in relation to some upcoming friendlies that he had hoped would go ahead.

“We need to send a message to the rest of the world,” Tashima said. “We need to inform them that Tokyo is functional, that the city is okay and order is being restored.

“The entire Japanese football community needs to help the country get back on its feet again. Not just soccer, but I think the whole sports world in Japan needs to step up for the nation.”

And step up it will, because that is what sport does. It is of the people, for the people. And while, out of necessity, it gets marginalized on the occasions when a major catastrophe strikes, its impact is only dormant.

Japan will rise again and sport will be an agents of that renaissance. It is a moral-booster, not peripheral to the culture but an integral part of it, and one of the true barometers of a society in good health.

The bid by Grant Wahl to oppose Sepp Blatter in this year’s FIFA presidential election might seem like a humorous act of self-publicity by the Sports Illustrated magazine journalist, but it’s very much in keeping with the spirit of the times.

I’m not putting the battle for world football's top job on a par with the life and death struggle for democracy in the Middle East, but the tide of people power sweeping through countries such as Tunisia, Egypt and Libya can’t help but inspire a “we can” mentality among some of us watching the drama unfold.

The FIFA election to find a leader for football's world governing body is politics not sport, and the “why them and not us?” attitude has been prevalent in the political world for years.

In my native Britain, for example, I well remember a habitual parliamentary candidate by the name of Screaming Lord Sutch, who contested a number of elections as the leader of the "Monster Raving Loony Party." Did he ever have a chance of winning anything? No! However, apart from the comic relief factor, his mere presence helped puncture the pomposity of the whole electoral process and perhaps made some people think more about the real issues by creating a ridiculous alternative.

In the United States, Ross Perot twice ran for president as an independent candidate without having any realistic chance of winning. However, his entry at least challenged the status quo and provided a choice, perhaps forcing traditional candidates to work harder at proving their policies were indeed any better than those of the red herring.

In film, the ultimate example of a maverick candidacy was in the movie "Brewster’s Millions," in which minor league baseball pitcher Monty Brewster, played by Richard Prior, used part of his inherited fortune on a mayoral campaign in New York as leader of a party he named “None of the Above.” The premise being that none of the candidates truly had the good of the people at heart, so why not vote for None of the Above?

Unfortunately for Brewster, the people took to the idea and he found himself turned from a rebel into a viable candidate - a perfect example of democracy in action. However, that was not in his plans, and, having sought to thumb his nose at the whole democratic process, he was forced to concede that it actually worked.

His solution, when faced with that ultimate irony, was to withdraw from the race, reasoning that while he was of the people and for the people, he had nothing more substantial than a few good intentions with which to lead the people.

How does that relate to Wahl’s bid to become FIFA president? Well, though I’m sure Grant would like to see himself as the people’s candidate - an everyman seeking to snatch the game back from the autocrats – I just wonder whether there can be enough substance behind his bid to see it through in the unlikely event of a victory.

Don’t get me wrong, giving the public a voice at football's top table is a laudable ambition. But, as Monty Brewster discovered, you have to be careful what you wish for.

Grant is a respected journalist. As such, I assume he’s reactive not proactive because it’s our job to break the news not make the news. However, as FIFA president you are the game’s ultimate catalyst. It’s you that makes things happen.

And while, like all of us who love soccer, Grant will have a million theories on how things could be done better, ideas are a dime a dozen. It’s the implementation that counts, with the all the determination, cunning, diplomacy, connections, business acumen, and ruthlessness that it entails.

Therefore, in the event that he does get his name on the ballot, one question above all needs to be considered - would a vote for Grant Wahl be a vote for a legitimate candidate who could take the game forward, or for None of the Above?

To be the best you’ve got to beat the best, so the saying goes. But in professional boxing it seems to be the best you’ve only got to avoid the best.

There is no doubt that the Klitschko brothers are two of the biggest attractions in boxing right now. Wladimir holds the IBF and WBO heavyweight crowns, while Vitali is the WBC belt holder.

Each lays claim to being the world’s best heavyweight, though they will never fight each other to answer the question once and for all. That’s understandable, as fighting is obviously a hurting game and the fight would be a sham, because who wants to hurt their own flesh and blood?

But while a sibling battle is unimaginable, a fight with WBA champion, David Haye, was a no-brainer for this year and the only fight for either Klitschko that would validate their position and their legacy.

Unfortunately, it seems that will not happen, as Vitali will instead meet Odlanier Solis in March, and Wladimir will fight Dereck Chisora on April 30th, with one or other of the Klitschko’s now set to fight Tomasz Adamek of Poland in September depending on the outcome of the previous fights.

That leaves Haye out in the cold. And, as he plans to retire from boxing in October, it could mean we never see the explosive Brit tackle the Ukrainians or see the heavyweight titles unified any time soon.

To my mind that would be a massive shame. Let’s face it, boxing has been largely out of the public consciousness for some time now. Yes, we’ve latched on to Manny Pacquiao as a personality, but I still believe that boxing is only as popular to the masses as its heavyweight champion because the notion of a fighter who can conquer all as opposed to all in his weight class is a lot more tangible.

Yet the opportunity to produce a top dog is repeatedly scorned for reasons of money, politics and ego, while ignoring the demands of the public, or at least those who really care about the sport.

For my sins, I still like boxing. I’m old enough to remember the buzz around Ali-Frazier, Ali-Foreman fights. The Bowe, Holyfield, Tyson era. And even during the times when the focus fell away from the heavyweight division, the Hearns, Leonard, Hagler, Duran dynasty filled the gaps with equal aplomb.

Had Twitter been around back then, boxing would surely have been among the top trending topics. It was a conversation you had.

Sadly, you can’t say that about any boxing match in the 21st century. Most people just don’t care, with the result that the sport dies a little more every day.

Haye versus the Klitschko’s would not have been a cure all, but they are fights that people would have wanted to see. Unfortunately, it seems they are off the agenda, which is great for fans of Solis, Chisora, and Adamek, but nobody else.

Chelsea won the 2010 English Premier League, but is it the best league in the world?

He further indicated that while the English Premier League is the best marketed league in the world, it does not, in his opinion, have the best players or play the best football.

Millions of football fans will be happy to agree with Blatter’s assessment, and millions more will disagree. However, the fact is that, at present, we have no quantifiable way of knowing which league is the best.

It’s all conjecture based on subjectivity or, in the case of choosing the FIFA XI, pseudo statistics since the make-up of the team was arrived at by way of a vote not any kind empirical data.

The “best league in the world” debate is one I’ve been hearing for more years than I care to recall. Is it Spain’s La Liga because Barcelona and Real Madrid are such good sides?

Is it Italy’s Serie-A because of the tactical nature of its football?

Is it England’s Premier League because there are literally no easy matches and because its clubs can afford to buy the best?

Is it in Argentina or Brazil as they produce and export so many quality players overseas?

The answer is always inconclusive because personal bias plays such a big part. But what if that was not the case? What if there was a way to prove which league is the best?

Well, I believe there is. How about FIFA scrapping the World Club Cup, which is a sham of a tournament in my view, and instead introducing a World League Cup to be played every four years in between FIFA World Cups.

Based on the same global combination of the FIFA World rankings and UEFA coefficient, which currently rank national teams and clubs, each league would be given a world ranking.

The top eight leagues on the list at a pre-determined cut-off point would become eligible to play in the World League Cup Finals.

Each league would then pick a representative squad selected from all the clubs within its association, with the stipulation that any player selected, regardless of his nationality, must have joined the league in the previous transfer window or earlier, and must have played at least 15 games in the league he is representing.

It might also be stipulated that no single club can provide more than five squad members, but that’s up for discussion.

The tournament itself would consist of two groups of four, with the composition of each group decided by seeding. After round-robin group play, the top-two finishers in each group would then enter the semis, with the winners of course going head-to-head in the final to decide the league champion of the world.

I see this as a huge attraction as it would mean the best players in the game competing together and against each other unencumbered by their nationality, which is more in keeping with the cosmopolitan nature of the game we watch each week.

It would also be a huge money-spinner for the competing leagues, with the revenue split equally between the clubs of the competing nations. And, of course, every four years it would put an end to the spurious claims of league supremacy by producing some tangible evidence.

What do you think?

The English Premier League may like to think it’s the biggest football league in the world, and certainly it spends the most money, but the 50,000 professional players, managers and journalists who voted for FIFA’s team of the year don’t appear to think it’s the best on the planet.

For the first time since the award was introduced, not one player from England’s top flight made the grade. Instead, the all-star team of 2010 featured six players from Barcelona, three from Inter Milan, with the other two coming from Real Madrid. Contrast that with last year, when the EPL provided five of the elite 11, and it would seem that its reputation has taken a bit of a bashing.

Of course, part of that can be put down to the fact that this was a global poll, and, with the tacit approval of FIFA and UEFA, there’s been a recent trend in world football towards putting the boot into the English game because of the vast amount of money it has thrown about in recent years.

Such spending has priced many foreign clubs out of contention for big-name stars, raised the transfer fees for even the most mediocre of players by inflating the market, and made insolvency fashionable. Many people find that abhorrent, and because of that sentiment there seems to be a certain satisfaction in putting English football down.

There’s also the current love affair with all things Barcelona and many things Spanish in the wake of the country's 2010 World Cup success and the Catalan club's continuing La Liga dominance. Barca retained the domestic title playing the kind of fantasy football that’s a purists dream, but unsustainable for Josep Guardiola's team or any other club, as it's built on a perfect storm of complementary talent the like of which will likely not be seen again for generations.

Add the legacy of England’s World Cup debacle, and it’s easy to see why the cosmopolitan electorate looked anywhere but the EPL to fill the team of the year. However, I think that was a bit short-sighted.

The Premier League - and I do mean the league itself as opposed to England per se, as the bulk of the EPL’s top stars are from overseas - produced a number of players who should certainly have been candidates for an unbiased vote based on their performances in 2010, which of course encompasses more of last season than the current one, otherwise why would Inter be so well-represented in light of their form from August to December?

Chelsea striker Didier Drogba top-scored in the EPL with 29 goals in the last campaign. And, while he’s been off the boil this season, due in part to the after-effects of malaria, he’d already done enough, in my opinion, to make the cut.

Florent Malouda was also stunning for the Blues last time out, which was his best season in Chelsea colors. Then there's Wayne Rooney, who had a stinking World Cup, but that should not have overshadowed what he did for Manchester United during their title challenge. And yes, I know he didn’t score a goal in open play from March last year until this month, but certainly the value of the work he did off the ball during the many games in which he failed to hit the target last season should not have been undervalued.

Similarly, Frank Lampard made 17 assists last season on route to Chelsea's league and cup double, while Cesc Fabregas of Arsenal made 15, both men adding more assists than Spain’s biggest helping hand, Xavi, who made only 14 for Barcelona.

Therefore, to my mind, there are at least five England-based players who deserved serious consideration on statistics alone. And that’s not even taking into account my contention that neither Barca nor Inter would have been as dominant as they were last year had they played in the EPL, where the pace, physicality and intensity of the competition week-in, week-out far surpasses that of any other league, making it harder for any one player to consistently excel.

So for me, the voters got it wrong by excluding the entire EPL contingent. But then football is all about opinions isn’t it?

CNN's World Sport will be broadcasting its predictions for 2011 in upcoming shows between December 31-January 2. In the third of a series of preview blogs, Terry Baddoo takes a look at the contenders for next year's Cricket World Cup.

On present form, I wouldn’t put much money on Australia claiming their fourth consecutive World Cup title next year. In fact, in their current state of mind it’s going to take a Herculean effort for the Aussies to even make a fist of it on the Indian sub-continent when the four-yearly event starts in late February.

At the time of writing, not only do they trail England in the Ashes series, but there seems to be a massive loss of confidence in their leadership, with serious questions being asked about skipper Ricky Ponting for the first time I can remember. But the one-day game is not Test cricket, and if it becomes a question of guts, you cannot rule the Aussies out - especially as they are still the top-ranked team in the 50-over format.

Australia's current nemesis, England, have never won the World Cup, but are as well-placed as anyone to break their duck. They won the Twenty20 World Cup, and have that swashbuckling X-factor in the shape of an in-form Kevin Pietersen, who recalls the halcyon days of the great Ian Botham in his ability to rise to the big occasion.

Home advantage will obviously be a factor for India and Sri Lanka. The Indians have had a mixed year in the lead-up to the World Cup despite retaining their place as the world's top team in the five-day game, though they’ve emerged with a blend of youth and experience with lots of competition for places that could undoubtedly make them a force.

That said, several big names have said they fear that India may buckle under the weight of expectation from their passionate home fans, who, if the razzle-dazzle of the Indian Premier League Twenty20 competition is anything to go by, will surely turn this tournament into a festival and a pressure cooker for their own team.

Sri Lanka will be under slightly less pressure, as they host only 12 of the matches, while India get 29 and Bangladesh just eight. The Sri Lankans will nonetheless be expected to shine. And while I’ve read that some experts believe they’re not consistent enough to go all the way, they’re currently third in the ODI world rankings, behind Australia and India, so must be doing something right.

South Africa are just behind them in fourth, and some have the Proteas as dark-horse title contenders. They certainly won’t lack for preparation, as their grandly-named “Operation World Cup” has expressly focused on producing a side that can end their long wait for a first success in the tournament.

Pakistan, who were stripped of hosting rights for security reasons, also have the bit between their teeth, and recently held a special week-long training camp which focused heavily on their ailing batsman. They’ll precede the World Cup with three Twenty20 matches, two Test matches and six one-dayers in New Zealand, and will arrive ready, willing, if not 100% able to lift the World Cup for the second time.

So, which of these teams will lift the trophy? Or will it be none of the above? After all, I didn’t even mention New Zealand or two-time winners the West Indies. Well, I’m not going to profess any inside knowledge, and I'm willing to bow to those who follow the game more closely than I do.

All the same, I'm going with my gut. This is England’s year. Unless, of course, you know different.

Just when we feared the old boys of FIFA might play it safe after “gambling” on fresh markets in 2010 with South Africa and then a long-awaited return to Brazil in 2014, they throw us for a loop and select two World Cup-hosting novices in Russia and Qatar. Brilliant!

During the months of wrangling over who said what to whom, and who asked who for what, it kind of got lost at times that the World Cup is a symbol of unity rather than an agent of divisiveness. But in choosing two first-timers to host, ruling body FIFA is reasserting the notion that football is a family in which each member at least has the opportunity to be an equal.

Russia’s choice as the host of the 2018 World Cup is perfectly logical. No country from the former Eastern Bloc has ever hosted a World Cup, and, though Russia/USSR has been present on the world football stage for many years, there’s still a feeling that we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg, economically speaking. As a result, FIFA, which takes the bulk of its revenue from the World Cup, was clearly not blind to the potential of another huge untapped market.

I’m obviously somewhat sad that my native England didn’t succeed, but I’m not surprised. In referring to England as “the mother country” of football, FIFA president Sepp Blatter may have encapsulated why the 1966 host didn’t get the nod. FIFA is all about breaking new frontiers at the moment, and maybe the English, for all their forward thinking and expertise in handling the sport, are still seen as just too traditional - which is kind of ironic given the criticism the FIFA Executive Committee has endured about being an old boys' club.

But clearly there’s life in the old dogs yet, as they then compounded their adventurous decision on 2018 by throwing caution to the wind in selecting Qatar for 2022. Like Russia, Qatar’s success represents a first, as no World Cup has ever been held in the Middle East. Indeed, only one World Cup has ever been held in Asia - the 2002 finals jointly hosted by South Korea and Japan.

I was given the chance to put Qatar’s case during our World Sport debate prior to the vote, and the more I looked into it the more it grew on me. A smaller World Cup host will increase the intimacy of the finals. Qatar will be cocooned in football for a month or so in 2022, and the atmosphere that creates within the country will have a knock-on effect for the TV audience.

Qatar has the money to implement its plans for technological and infrastructural improvements that will enhance the World Cup experience and compensate for those brutal summer temperatures which everyone thought would be a deal breaker.

It has a central geographical location for travel, and is in an excellent time zone for the big TV audiences in Europe, the United States and South America. It exists in a region where football is the main sporting passion, the lack of which may have contributed to the USA’s downfall in this World Cup vote.

But above all, Qatar has the cache of being uncharted territory, which not only puts a twinkle in FIFA’s eyes in terms of potential revenue, but also plays into the idea, trumpeted by Blatter in his preamble to the announcement, that football is more than just a game. And he's right, football can make a difference, and by choosing Russia and Qatar as hosts FIFA is once again hoping to show how much.

When Lebron James takes the court against the Cavaliers this week for his first game in Cleveland since his off-season move to the Miami Heat, he’ll likely face a level of abuse not seen in the NBA for decades.

His abdication as king of the Cavs was nothing short of treason as far as many Cleveland fans were concerned, and his departure, without delivering the championship he’d promised, was viewed as the ultimate act of desertion.

Of course, he’s not the first sportsman who’s become an instant pariah by moving to another club. In 2000, Luis Figo’s transfer to Real Madrid from Barcelona caused so much acrimony that the Portuguese footballer reportedly received death threats and had a severed pigs head thrown at him when he returned with Madrid to the Camp Nou for the "El Clasico" clash between the Spanish rivals.

Meanwhile, former England defender Sol Campbell is still referred to as “Judas” by Tottenham fans, nine years after he did the unthinkable by joining Spurs’ north London rivals Arsenal. In turn, Gunners fans have similar feelings toward one of their former heroes following Ashley Cole’s crosstown move to Chelsea in 2006.

In baseball, Texas Rangers fans often target their former golden boy Alex Rodriguez, who quit his record-setting 10-year, $252 million deal in 2004 to join the New York Yankees.

Later, he said he regretted ever signing with the Rangers and only joined them for the money.

In the NFL, many Packers fans don’t have a good word to say about record-setting quarterback Brett Favre, even though he starred with Green Bay for 16 seasons and led them to two Super Bowls, winning one in 1997.

The reason they feel this way stems from his protracted retirement saga back in 2008, which ended with him tearfully hanging up his cleats only to return a couple of months later with the New York Jets.

Favre subsequently joined the Packers’ arch-rivals, the Minnesota Vikings.

So, Lebron’s in good or bad company, depending on whether you see his move as a courageous decision to seek greener pastures or a mercenary act of cowardice.

Either way, he belongs to Miami Heat, and you can bet that his detractors will be the ones screaming loudest when he first runs the gauntlet in Cleveland on Thursday night.

FIFA’s guilty verdict against two of its top officials in the World Cup "cash for votes" scandal isn’t surprising. The case was reportedly so cut and dried that it would have been counter-productive for football's ruling body to be seen to protect its own. What is surprising, however, is that FIFA claims such righteous indignation that this kind of corruption exists within its ranks.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, as they say, and FIFA has managed to carve itself a niche as the ultimate untouchable in the sporting world, even to the extent that it puts its own laws above those of actual governments by forbidding political interference in football matters under pain of expulsion for the guilty member country.

Furthermore, under the reign of its current patriarch, Sepp Blatter, FIFA has been as focused on the buck as the ball, mutating from a so-called “family” into a money-making machine. For example, South African traders complained of being forced out at this year's World Cup as FIFA strictly enforced the commercial rights agreement it requires from any host nation. 

Little wonder then that with a “What’s in it for us?” mentality permeating the brotherhood, a “What’s in it for me?” mentality is just a step away.

Theoretically, of course, FIFA is safeguarded against the frailties of human nature by being a democracy, with voting delegates representing the interests of each member nation. However, it appears to work less than perfectly in practice, with a select group calling the shots. For example, how else can you explain a situation whereby, long before December's vote, President Blatter was able to state that the 2018 World Cup is going to Europe.

“There is a movement at the moment among the various candidates that in the end it would be a good solution if the candidates for 2018 would only be those from Europe,” he said at a news conference in January. “It's not been finally decided but it's the idea, also to make the work of FIFA easier and especially that of the executive committee."

Easier for the executive committee! Aren't they supposed to serve football instead of the other way around? And who are they anyway, besides 24 largely anonymous men (22 now that Nigeria's Amos Adamu and Oceania president Reynald Temarii of Tahiti have been discredited) who’ll decide the destination of not one but two World Cups - the biggest single events in global sport.

The fate of the many resides in the hands of the few, thus opening the way for corruption. Why? Because influencing one or two votes among 24 is so much easier and cheaper than trying to have a significant effect on a larger group. And any decisions they make can potentially have more impact, which is why the process has to change.

FIFA, especially in regard to World Cup bids, still gives the impression of being an elitist boys' club. And, despite paying lip-service to increased transparency and accountability, there are still too few checks and balances when it comes to making major decisions.

Of course, one or two bad apples don’t spoil the whole bunch, but it certainly leaves a bit of a stink in the bottom of the barrel doesn't it?

It's a brilliant idea - a league table for referees, with promotion and relegation at the end of each season so that the English Premier League gets the best-performing officials.

After reading about the proposition by Stoke City manager Tony Pulis, I was surprised to learn that there is no pecking order in terms of who gets what game, as it seems like I see Howard Webb on my television almost every time one of the big-four clubs takes the field.

However, according to the Professional Game Match Officials board, which looks after the referees, there is no such thing as a hierarchy among top-fight officials. Instead, a list of names for all matches is drawn from a select group that is sent out every Monday. So, technically, the likes of Chelsea and Manchester United do not get the best of the best every week.

At present, clubs and managers do get the opportunity to assess officials after every game, but Pulis wants to take it a step further by giving the clubs the chance to vote on officials at the end each season, with the lowest-ranked officials demoted to the Championship (the English second division) - from which the top refs would become their replacements.

Personally, I think that’s as it should be. Too often in football, referees make mistakes that come at a huge cost to the clubs, whether in terms of points lost or players lost to suspension, and though they are sometimes taken off the top list for a short period for such transgressions, there is not a system transparent enough to deal with the situation. Yes, they may be pilloried in the press or hammered by the fans, and they presumably get some kind of internal review, but over the following weeks, months and years, there they are still officiating the big games, and clubs currently have no influence in their selection.

Therefore, a league table should placate those people who believe that referees – unwittingly or otherwise – have their biases, and are influenced by the status of the teams they’re officiating and the clout of the big-name managers. Often it may not be intentional, but getting dazzled by star power is only human nature, and any system that makes an official question the motives for his judgment is surely only a failsafe that will make him do his job better.

So good on you Tony Pulis for turning a negative (Stoke being denied a penalty against Sunderland at the weekend) into a positive, with a valid suggestion that could be adopted throughout the game, never mind just in the Premier League.

Players, managers, fans and even directors are required to be accountable, so why not the refs?