Every now and again, sport produces a pure contest, a moment of such drama and theatre that it can be hard to think of any other form of entertainment that comes close.

That Novak Djokovic beat Rafael Nadal to win the Australian Open final on Sunday is almost neither here nor there. The event dwarfed the outcome and it was a privilege to witness it.

It wasn't just the quality of the play or the unbelievable rallies which seemed to go on for ever, it was the stamina and energy levels of these two players.

Neither Nadal nor Djokovic were prepared to give way. Each time you thought you could call it, the match swung back the other way.

Nadal seemed to be on his way out at 0-40 down in the fourth set, but he fought back to hold his serve and set up the chance to take it into a fifth after a tie-break.

At the end of one rally in the deciding set, Djokovic lay on the court flat on his back utterly exhausted. By this point, he was into his 11th hour of tennis in 54 hours. And yet he was able to pick himself up and win a match that lasted almost six hours, the longest Grand Slam final in history.

Inevitably, comparisons will be drawn with the 2008 Wimbledon men's final between Nadal and Roger Federer. But trying to compare the two is pointless in some ways.

Nevertheless, what the two matches tell us beyond any question of a doubt is that this is a golden era for men's tennis. No other sport can boast a top four of such quality with such fascinating and engaging characters.

At the start of what we hope will be an incredible sporting year, this epic match has set the bar incredibly high. Euro 2012, Wimbledon, Olympics, Paralympics and Ryder Cup will have to go some to beat this.

For Andy Murray, much of the talk here has been of the instant impact coach Ivan Lendl has made to the British number one's play and temperament. There's none of the gloomy sense of inevitably among the regular tennis correspondents. Instead, there's a sense of optimism that he is making progress.

But the Nadal/Djokovic classic has shown him he will now have to work even harder to get there. Not just with his game but with his stamina. Could Murray really have lasted five sets with either of these two in this sort of form?

It just about bears repeating that it is Murray's misfortune to be born in an age blessed with such a glorious depth of talent. For this is not tennis in the traditional sense.

Rod Laver was one of eight former Australian Open champions on court to witness Sunday's final. Laver must know this is an entirely different sport to the one he played, to the one even played by Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe in the 1980s.

And regardless of Britain's long wait for another champion, it will be interesting to see whether these gladiators inspire a new generation of tennis players in Britain.

Professor David Cowan, the man in charge of the new £10million state of the art lab in Harlow, Essex, says they will be able to test for the broadest possible range of banned substances.

But are more tests necessarily the answer in the battle for sporting integrity?

In Athens in 2004 there were 26 positive tests from 3,667 samples collected. Four years later the tests went up to 4,770 but the number of positives went down to 20.

During the world athletics championships in Daegu last summer every athlete was tested but - and this still seems incredible to me - there wasn't a single positive test returned.

Like crime statistics, does the trend for less positive tests during competition reflect how sport is getting cleaner? Or - and I suspect this is the right answer - is it evidence that athletes are getting smarter and not risking putting anything illegal in their systems during the big events?

Then there is the question of how you test for something like blood doping where athletes take out their own blood, store it and then inject it back into their bloodstream to boost their red blood cell count and, in turn, their body's oxygen carrying capacity.

This increases stamina and performance but if the only indicator is a raised level of red blood cells then how are the testers to know if anything illegal has been going on?

Dwain Chambers (right) could still compete at the London 2012 Olympics after his drugs ban. Photo: AP

Scientists like Prof Cowan say the only way is for more sports to join athletics, swimming, cycling and rowing by making athletes carry their own biometric passport. Then testers will know how to spot anything abnormal.

For the IOC president Jacques Rogge there is a lot at stake with the London Games. The IOC's defeat in the Lashawn Merritt case last year was a major blow in the fight against the cheats.

The IOC's rule 45 previously banned any athlete guilty of a serious drugs offence from the next Olympics - even if they had served their ban by the time of the Games. But the Court of Arbitration for Sport forced the IOC to scrap that rule allowing Merritt and others to compete in London.

The British Olympic Association's own lifetime ban for serious drugs offenders faces the same fate when its own case is heard by the same court in March.

If the BOA has to abandon its treasured bylaw then, once again, it will send a signal that the movement is going soft on drugs just on the eve of the Games.

And no matter how many tests you do, it might be difficult for organisers to shake that impression.

But for those who question whether he still resonates with the sport, I would suggest a trip to the Lynn boxing club in Peckham, south London.

I spent a couple of hours there on Monday evening, filming a special report on his 70th birthday for BBC News. Despite the freezing weather, around 20 boys, and young men and women had turned out to train and spar.

When I spoke to some of them I was amazed to find that even boys as young as 11 had watched most of Ali's classic fights and studied his technique and style intently.

As we played them replays of his fights on the wall of their gym, one or two mimicked his moves, trying to absorb a bit of the magic they were seeing.

Ali, of course, will always hold a special place in British affections.

As ITV's excellent documentary 'When Ali came to Britain' pointed out, initial hostility at his brash trash talking quickly gave way to warmth as his charisma won over the public.

His frequent visits and TV interviews here cemented his status and, although he often faced tough questioning on his divisive religious and racial views, he relished the greater freedom he seemed to enjoy in Britain.

Decades on, his power as a sporting icon grows ever greater. He remains the most recognisable figure in sport, regularly topping sporting celebrity polls around the world.

His ability to generate cash also remains huge.

He earned $55m (£35.75m) in 2006 and although that was a high point, he still generates between $3m and $4m a year for CKX, an entertainment-business based in New York which owns 80% of his image rights. (Just for the record, CKX also own the lion's share of the image rights to Elvis - not a bad American double act.)

I never saw Ali fight in the flesh. Like those youngsters at the Lynn club, I have to rely on replays to experience those amazing nights in Zaire or Manilla, moments when the world seemed to stop for heavyweight boxing.

But you didn't have to see him fight in person to understand his significance - both as a fighter and as a man of history, someone who shaped rather than just reflected events. Who else in sport can compare?

Tiger Woods perhaps matches his sporting achievements and as a black man in a predominantly white sport potentially carries similar cultural resonance.

But while we now know a bit too much about his private life, who can say they know anything of Tiger's beliefs? He is a sporting giant for the corporate age and honesty tends to be bad for business.

Watching one or two of Ali's interviews with Sir Michael Parkinson again, I am amazed at the level of scrutiny he was subjected to.

It's impossible to imagine any sportsman or woman now holding such controversial views on race, religion or, of course, his rivals - let alone being prepared to be questioned on such subjects.

We live in a more deferential age and sport is much the poorer for it.

On Saturday night in his home town of Louisville, Kentucky, a few hundred carefully selected guests gathered at the Muhammad Ali Centre to celebrate Ali's 70th birthday.

It was supposed to be a behind-closed-doors, private event. But Ali the showman couldn't resist.

As the crowd sang happy birthday to him, Ali stood on a balcony above them and raised a hand. It was a small gesture but it was acknowledgment of the enormous regard in which he is still held.

Afterwards one of Ali's daughters told reporters he was now entering the most dangerous phase of Parkinson's when he is most susceptible.

But Ali has spent his life defying doubters and confounding expectations. Who would dare write him off just yet?

David Bond's report on Ali will be broadcast on BBC News at 1800 and 2200 GMT on Tuesday, 17 January.

Officials from organising committee Locog currently overseeing attempts to resolve the ticketing problems, led by commercial director Chris Townsend, won't say it publicly but anyone hoping to buy tickets from those selling them may have to wait a bit longer.

Having spent the week testing Ticketmaster's flawed resale system, it is clear London 2012 can no longer risk its reputation by trying to match sellers with buyers instantly.

Instead Locog, as part of its commitment to provide customers with a secure and legal way to sell unwanted tickets and avoid touts, will buy back tickets from those fans who no longer want them.

London 2012 games has been hit by an unprecedented demand for tickets which forced the Ticketmaster website to shut down. Photo: Getty 

Once it has gathered all the returned tickets - and that number is expected to be a tiny fraction of the overall 6.6 million tickets available to the British public - it will look to put them on sale again at a later date, probably as part of the final sell-off of the one million remaining tickets in April or May.

This is entirely sensible. There is only one thing worse than not getting tickets and that is being told you have them only to discover subsequently that the website was too slow to update and the tickets you thought you had bought went to someone else – as happened in the second round of ticket sales last year.

But there are still serious questions for London 2012 and Ticketmaster to answer on the ticket sales process.

Although Locog will blame its partner (and sponsor) for the way the ticketing process has been run, it knows its reputation has been badly hit by the various setbacks, from the initial disappointment of the first phase of ticket sales which seemed to reward those who gambled big money on vast numbers of tickets, to the second public offering, with the technical gremlins set out above.

The number of tickets being sold back into London 2012 is likely to be small. But many big challenges lie ahead.

How will the sale of the last million tickets be handled? Will it be “first come, first served” or will those punters who have missed out twice get a short period to graze over the site before everybody else – as a reward for their commitment?

Then Ticketmaster and London 2012 face the difficult task of printing the 6.6 million tickets, keeping them secure and distributing them. There are a lot of pitfalls along the way.

Unless Townsend and his colleagues at Locog get a grip on the ticketing process now then it could become an even more toxic issue for them in the run-up to the Games. It sounds like today is a step in the right direction.

At first glance a five-year plan worth £1bn aimed at young people looks impressive.

But, as ever, things are not what they seem.

Sport England, who are in charge of the new programme, was always going to receive this money as the reduction in the number of National Lottery good causes - from five to four - had guaranteed them an extra £180m over the next five-year funding cycle.

The £450m allocated to sports governing bodies from 2013-17 is exactly the same amount as that given to them between 2009-13.

There is an extra £160m for improving and building new sports facilities. And there is more money for the School Games programme backed up by a £10m sponsorship from Sainsbury's.

But apart from the Sainsbury's money, all of this was budgeted for.

With so much pressure on the public finances it is hardly surprising that there is no new money being thrown at sport. In some ways, it is remarkable that sport has been able to hold on to what it has.

Will the London Olympics inspire young people to take up sport? Photo - PA

What is different, according to the Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt, is the refocusing of the available resources - away from adults (a group which has seen an increase in participation since London won the right to stage the Games in 2005) towards teenagers and young people.

Here the statistics have been appalling. Since 2005 there has been a 2% drop among 16-19 year-olds, with a 100,000 decline in the last year alone.

To arrest that slide, Hunt wants Sport England and the governing bodies to focus their efforts and cash on getting youngsters who play sport at school and college to keep the habit after they leave formal education.

More money aimed at opening up school and college facilities to local clubs will help if the new programme can be made to work.

Withholding money from sports governing bodies unless they deliver on targets for getting young people to particpate in those sports will also help concentrate minds.

But so much of this is about changing cultural and social behaviour among young people. That is a far wider social issue and it starts in schools.

The problem, critics argue, is that last year's controversial decision to slash funding for school sports co-ordinators could do even greater damage to the legacy vision than the problem in youth sport which the government is now trying to address.

Then there is the difficulty of measuring the country's sporting habits.

The exisiting Active People survey is deeply flawed. Data is collected by researchers who call people on their home landlines.

I don't know about you but every time my home phone rings I ignore it, fearing it will be someone trying to sell me something.

How accurate is the information being gathered and should ministers be basing such critical spending decisions on it?

And even if the information is reliable, how do you measure if someone is sporty? Does playing football once a week compare with three half-hour sessions at the gym? Is walking a sport?

London 2012 chairman Seb Coe - the man who made the participation promises - is deeply cynical about the survey's findings, pointing to anecdotal evidence that we are getting more active.

That is only partly because every time the participation story comes up, he is reminded of the promises he made to the International Olympic Committee in Singapore in 2005.

After all, he is pretty much powerless to do anything about it as he has an Olympic Games to put on.

The government's new strategy is an acknowledgment that something had to be done and for that Hunt and Sports Minister Hugh Robertson deserve credit.

But the deeper social and cultural shift away from sport among young people may need far more drastic action.

But the beginning of the year has also brought a major shift in the coalition Government's Olympic rhetoric. Prime Minister David Cameron highlighted the Games in his New Year message and will chair the first cabinet meeting of 2012 on the Olympic Park on Monday.

Can Olympic mascots Wenlock (left) and Mandeville help to boost the profile of the London 2012 Games and galvanise a frail economy? Photo: Getty

He will also use the photo opportunity to reinforce his belief that Great Britain should embrace the events as a showcase for the country and to squeeze every drop of opportunity from them at a time when the economy is in such peril.

Even the Olympic cynics would agree there is little point in now opposing the Games. They are coming and we as taxpayers have pretty much paid for them already.

We must also not lose sight of the fact that the Games are a historic, once-in-a-lifetime moment. For British sport, they offer the single biggest opportunity in decades to showcase our talent and sporting passion. Cameron deserves credit for recognising this and for embracing them.

Paul Deighton, the chief executive of the London 2012 organising committee (Locog), was only saying very recently that he was worried the significance of the Olympics was yet to dawn on vast chunks of the British public.

But that does not mean that we should just accept what Cameron and other ministers tell us over the next few months. Yes, the Olympics and Paralympics are great for Britain but will they help ease the country's economic crisis? Unlikely.

There is no clear evidence from any previous Games that there is any lasting positive economic effect from hosting the Olympics. In Sydney in 2000, one of the most successful editions of the Olympics ever staged, yet researchers at one university found the impact on the economy was actually negative.

Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary and the cabinet minister responsible for the Olympics, found it difficult on BBC Radio 5 live's Sportsweek programme on Sunday to produce any hard figures when it came to predicting the economic benefits from the Games.

He pointed to an extra five million tourists and a 17% increase in overseas tourism receipts in Canada following the 2010 Winter Games in Vancouver. But in Sydney, tourism as a percentage of Australia's GDP actually declined after 2000.

At best, we can say the evidence is inconclusive. Which is why we should just expect a bit of caution from politicians as they urge us to "just go for it", as Cameron did last week and will again on Monday.

At a time when people are losing their jobs, there is a greater need than ever to be vigilant on Olympic costs. Hunt said he was as confident as he could be that the Games would stay within the £9.3bn budget. But with £500m of contingency left and just over six months to go, it is clear there is little room to wriggle.

On the even more testing issue of legacy, expect more announcements from the Government this week.

Having scrapped the Labour target of trying to get one million more adults playing sport and a further million more active - whatever that meant - last year, Hunt will on Tuesday reveal the latest attempt to salvage the promises on participation and solve the decline in young people playing sport.

Lord Sebastian Coe, the Locog chairman, won the London Games by promising to get a new generation interested in sport. But ever since London won the right to stage the Olympics, there has been little progress.

In fact, the most recent figures from Sport England demonstrate a 100,000 drop in sporting activity among 16-19 year olds. At the same time, the Government's decision to scrap Labour's school sports policy last year is still attracting criticism.

Shadow Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell told the Observer newspaper on Sunday that Education Secretary Michael Gove had undone eight years work at a stroke with his "incomprehensible decision" to scrap schools sports partnerships.

Hunt will try to address these concerns on Tuesday when supermarket chain Sainsbury's is revealed as a new long-term backer of the Government's School Games to 2018. There will also be more money from the Department of Health for youth sport projects.

Will any of this be enough to really change the country's sporting habits?

Baroness Sue Campbell, the chair of UK Sport and head of the Youth Sport Trust, is not convinced. She wants to see a proper long-term strategy in schools that can help deliver on Lord Coe's legacy vision for the country.

Now, all of this will be set aside as we get nearer to the Games and the country gets swept up in the excitement and euphoria of British success.

That is absolutely right. But at the start of such a big year for British sport, we should just try to remember the reasons we decided to bid for the Olympics in the first place.

That view will be echoed among many supporters but the FA says it cannot act until the criminal prosecution case against the defender has run its course.

Whatever the eventual outcome, the FA is duty bound to investigate. And the Crown Prosecution Service's unprecedented decision to charge such a senior figure for the alleged racial abuse of a fellow player will dominate the beginning of 2012 and beyond.

In the space of just 24 hours, the toxic issue of racism between players on the pitch has put English football back in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons.

On Tuesday it was Luis Suarez. Wednesday, John Terry. Having sent such a strong message by banning the Liverpool player for eight matches and fining him £40,000, the FA knows it can't afford to be weak on another case even closer to home.

Terry is due to face an initial hearing at West London Magistrates on 1 February. England don't have a match until the friendly against the Netherlands on 29 February.

The FA will be desperate for it all to be sorted quickly to prevent disruption ahead of Euro 2012.

Fat chance.

John Terry faces a criminal charge of using racist language towards footballer Anton Ferdinand. Photo: Reuters

Even if the criminal case was done and dusted by then, the FA's own inquiries will have to be reinstated - regardless of whether Terry is cleared or not.

There is no indication that the FA will put England manager Fabio Capello's plans for next summer's European Championship ahead of the far more important moral issue of taking a lead on racism.

Besides, were Terry to be found guilty, how on earth could a player found guilty of racially abusing an opponent on the field of play really lead a side which has so many black players?

Whatever the legal rights and wrongs, it would have a poisonous effect on a dressing room so easily disrupted at major tournaments.

And remember England's black players have been subjected to racist abuse from fans when playing abroad.

So does all this prove that English football has a major racism problem?

The authorities and Kick It Out have done great work in raising awareness of the issue.

When I started as a reporter on a local newspaper in south London back in the late 1990s, the sort of abuse you heard directed at black players in grounds was appalling.

While you do still hear that from time to time, it is no where near as bad as it was.

But it's perfectly obvious it hasn't been stamped out. The truth is the picture isn't clear enough and so much is dependent on whether fans and players are prepared to report incidents.

Regardless of the outcome of the criminal case and any subsequent FA inquiry against Terry, this is a moment, and an opportunity, to really get to grips with a problem which, on the pitch or in the stands, has never really gone away.

The first was that deciphering the intricacies of the £9.3bn public sector funding package for the London Games remains as daunting as trying to run the marathon.

The second was that, despite all the confusing jargon that comes with risk assessment and contingency planning, government officials have now pretty much conceded that all but £36m of that £9.3bn Olympic budget will be spent.

After several attempts by MPs to clarify the figures revealed by the National Audit Office last week, Jonathan Stephens, the civil servant ultimately responsible for ensuring the numbers add up, admitted the figure of £36m "was a prudent estimate".

In civil service speak, that is as close to a confirmation as you will get that there is unlikely to be any money left in the Olympic kitty by the time the Games get under way.

As things stand, there is £528m left of the £2.7bn Olympic contingency pot set aside when the revised budget was announced back in 2007.

Construction continues on the Olympic stadium and the Orbit sculpture. Photo: PA

Officials have tried to assess the risks they know are coming and to quantify what should be set aside for the unknowns. That is why the Government Olympic Executive has now admitted that the budget is very "finely balanced".

So, having spent much of the last year hinting that the Games may even come in under budget, ministers will start 2012 knowing there has to be a fair chance they will now overshoot the £9.3bn target.

With eight months to go, the Games are entering the most critical operational phase when unforeseen events can suddenly leave organisers with no alternative but to dig deep and plug the gap.

The major challenges are still transport and security. Even allowing for the revised venue security announcement last week, the task of keeping the city and the country safe during the Games is something the government cannot afford to cut any corners on.

But the amount of public money now being allocated to the London organising committee (Locog) is a growing cause for concern.

Paul Deighton, Locog's chief executive, told MPs that £867m had now been allocated from the taxpayer in addition to the £2bn of private funds they are aiming to raise.

He insists that is because Locog's role has changed over time and it has assumed a wider brief. The vast majority of that £867m - £536m to be precise - is for the venue security bill hammered out last week.

But Locog was always supposed to be self sustaining. Even though the host city contract with the International Olympic Committee states the government - and so us - are the final guarantor, it was not supposed to be a drain on the contingency.

This raises two issues. The first is whether Locog will need to go back to Government for any more money. Judging by Locog's handling of the original estimate of venue security requirements - the 10,000 staff forecast was likened by a Home Office official to sticking a "finger in the air" - there must be genuine concerns that, as the Games get closer, it will need more public money.

And if Locog does need to take more contingency, then where else might that leave the budget short if something else goes wrong?

To give Deighton and his team credit, they have delivered all but £200m of their £2bn private funding targets in the face of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression. Ticket sales have raised £527m, with only a further £130m required to hit the target of just over £650m. A further £50m is to be raised from merchandising.

These figures reflect Locog and Deighton's huge commercial achievements. But the last couple of weeks have seen a slight shift in the mood around the London Games.

The hope for organisers was always that the British economy would turn the corner in late 2011 and early 2012 and that the Olympics would deliver an extra shot in the arm, creating a feelgood factor to lift the gloom.

With the Euro crisis set to get worse, the Games now look set to be overshadowed by a worsening, not improving, economic climate.

In such times, with more and more people losing their jobs and with public sector cuts starting to bite, the idea that the Olympic budget could be busted will not go down well with the population - no matter how much people might be longing for an excuse to party.

Throughout them all he has, somehow, managed to hold on and perhaps emerged even stronger inside world football.

Even at the height of the cash for votes affair involving his rival for the Fifa presidency Mohamed Bin Hammam, he never lost his swagger.

Maybe it is the cumulative effect of all this but none of the issues touched on above have - quite rightly - had quite the same impact on the public as his claims that racist incidents on the field of play could be settled with a handshake.

What made it worse was that his attempted clarifications - first on Twitter and then in a written statement and subsequent television interview - only seemed to reinforce that he genuinely believed what he had originally said.

Zurich

So, with no sign of the storm blowing itself out, Blatter really had no choice but to apologise when I interviewed him at Fifa House this morning.

Contrite and seemingly shocked at the offence his comments had caused, Blatter said sorry three times - once in a prepared statement and then twice more later on when I questioned him on the subject.

Leaving no room for any doubt, he made it clear this time that if one player racially abused another during a match there should be zero tolerance.

But why did Blatter take so long to realise his comments had caused offence and why did he say them in the first place?

He told me he hadn't been sufficiently clear with his choice of words and that it hadn't dawned on him for some time that his remarks had been interpreted in such a negative way.

Surely it would have been evident pretty quickly once his interviews on Wednesday with CNN and Al Jazeera had been broadcast? Are we really to believe that the president of Fifa is so out of touch that it takes two days for news to reach his office in Zurich?

Or did he think he could ride this storm out like all the others he has had to face. Keep your head down for a day, it's mainly the English media again. It will all go quiet soon and everything will go back to normal.

Maybe.

And what of his original claims? Can they simply be airbrushed from the record? Blatter is a very intelligent man. True, English is not his first language and he is more confident in Spanish and French when not speaking his German mother tongue, but he seemed so clear, so insistent that racism on the pitch was the same as foul language.

Does this mean a man with outmoded, racist views lurks beneath the public persona of a campaigner for footballing equality? A man who did put his presidency and reputation on the line to take the World Cup to South Africa and who was so emphatically defended today by Tokyo Sexwale, a South African politician who spent 13 years in jail on Robben Island.

Probably not. But I remain uncomfortable about the whole thing.

For, make no mistake, my interview - although organised some weeks ago - was part of a co-ordinated fightback.

I have already mentioned the Sexwale press conference, which was well timed, to say the least.

But interestingly, shortly after I arrived at Fifa House this morning, Blatter walked out of the main reception with a member of the ethics committee from Senegal. The pair walked past me and my team and the gentleman got into his car before Blatter walked back in and greeted us, making sure we knew exactly who he had just shown out.

Was this coincidence? Who knows? Perhaps it is a consequence of the collapse in trust in the Fifa president that I am left contemplating a darker motive in an innocent act of courtesy.

Then it must always be remembered that Blatter is a master politician who rarely does anything without considering its effect.

So is his apology today sufficient to douse the flames? Probably. But was he genuinely contrite?

Again he is a good actor and he knows how to put on a good show but I have rarely seen him like this. At times he seemed to be genuinely shaken by the whole thing.

Tellingly, at the end of the interview, he looked across to his PR advisers. There was relief in his eyes but the look also begged a question: "How did I do?"

The reality is that, sorry or not, Blatter would never have even considered resigning over this. And who was going to push him? His answer to me on that score, was a return to the old, strutting Blatter.

"I cannot," was his reply. For him the Fifa presidency is a mission, not a job.

As far as he is concerned he has been given a huge mandate by the Fifa congress to carry on and now clean up the organisation.

Politically, only when a large number of the 208 national associations which make up Fifa start lighting up the Zurich switchboard with outrage will he even consider shuffling off into retirement.

Away from the headlines on racism there were some other important comments from Blatter today.

He said he would not "put his hands into the fire" to prove his executive committee was clean. Only when a new fit and proper person test was in place could he be sure.

He revealed his plans to release the documents relating to the ISL case were currently being opposed by "other parties" who may hinder that publication. Despite that he insisted he was still determined to publish these documents next month.

And he acknowledged that, as president, he did have a responsibility for the image crisis Fifa is suffering, although he then went on to suggest the crisis was all down to the decision to decide two World Cup hosts at the same time.

He managed to evade questions about his salary, the way Fifa is run and why, after 13 years in charge, he should be trusted when he says he is now the great reformer.

When the racism storm does die down, these are the matters and questions that Blatter will have to return to.

And, while his comments on racism give more ammunition to his critics who say he is out of touch, they will ultimately determine his legacy.

Saying sorry was the easy part. His biggest problems still lie ahead.

One number we can be certain of is £1.265bn. That is the amount of money spent and budgeted for to secure the London 2012 Games since 2007.

That figure includes:

£475m for policing and wider security, which was reduced from £600m in 2010 following a review by Dame Pauline Neville Jones.

£282m for venue security. This is the element of the budget which is currently subject to a review, more of which in a moment.

£270m for securing the Olympic Park during construction.

£238m for security contingency.

Security has always been one of the biggest challenges for London 2012 - photo: Press Association.

The overall number will rise significantly when ministers sign off a major review of venue security next week.

But organisers and government officials say there is more than enough cash in the contingency pot to cover it.

That is certainly true. According to the last quarterly report published by the Government Olympic Executive which covers the three months to the end of June 2011, there was £643.5m available for overspend.

To be clear, that includes the £125m for security handed back by the Home Office following the work carried out by Dame Neville Jones and the £238m for security contingency.

Estimates for the final cost of venue security are hard to pin down at this stage.

In September it was forecast that the final number of security personnel needed would rise from 10,000 (London 2012's original estimate) to more than 22,000.

The cost of paying for that 12,000 increase could be anywhere between £100m to £200m depending on where the staff are recruited from.

Again, back in September, the plan was to use 7,500 volunteers and 5,000 military personnel.

Government sources have told me that the numbers are changing all the time and it is difficult to be certain what the final cost will be.

All of which suggests there is still some almighty haggling going on between government departments to resolve this issue. But if there is enough money in the contingency pot, why the debate?

Might this have something to do with Defence Secretary Philip Hammond's sudden announcement in the House of Commons on Monday that ground-to-air missiles would be deployed if deemed necessary to safeguard London during the Olympics?

Or was Hammond just responding to the Guardian newspaper's story on Monday that the Americans are unhappy with Britain's security planning.
Perhaps it was all just designed to reaasure us that with a review under way and the first of what will surely be a series of security scare stories, the Games will not bring chaos and terror to the streets of London next summer.

It was a theme the London 2012 chief executive Paul Deighton picked up on when questioned by MPs on the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee on Tuesday.

Deflecting criticism for getting the original estimate wrong in the first place, Deighton claimed we should all take comfort from the fact that the numbers were going up because it showed just how detailed the plans now were.

In that case should we be worried about the plans that have not changed much over the last few years? Are they subject to less detailed planning?

The fact is that while security will always be a highly emotive - and newsworthy - subject being definitive on costings or the exact nature of the threat is extremely difficult.

When Athens won the 2004 Games back in 1997 did they think they would become the first summer Games to be staged following the biggest terrorist atrocity in history? The Greek security bill rocketed because of 9/11.

That it passed peacefully should not lull anyone into a false sense of security when it comes to the Olympics. Previous Games - Munich in 1972 and Atlanta in 1996 mosty notably - proved that they are a magnet for all sorts of extremists, nutters and terrorists.

In July 2011 the Home Office downgraded the general terror threat level in the United Kingdom to "substantial" - meaning a terrorist attack is a "strong possibility".

But all that could change before the Games open on July 26.

London's organisers know the risks better than anyone. The 7/7 bombings happened a day after the city won the right to host the Games in 2005.

Security has always been one of the biggest challenges for London 2012 - but it is almost certainly the biggest unknown.

many photos of Pretty Girls taken at Major Soccer Tournaments on the twitter page Kick-Here

]]> Fri, 21 Oct 2011 06:04:02 -0400 http://www.footballbooks.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=623:the-jackie-milburn-fund-raising-birthday-card&catid=300:blue-print-2011&Itemid=392

The Greeting Card
Size: 8inch (20.32cm) x 10inch (25.4cm)
We have reproduced as fine art prints mounted onto Greeting Cards the entire collection, which runs into over 75 all pre 1960's Famous Players/Big Boy Heroes. The print has been mounted onto a quality art board that forms the Greeting card? Inside an insert has been fitted, that gives a short profile of the player, opposite is where you write your greetings. We have limited the print run to 500 of each player, adhered on the back of each card is a Limited Edition Certificate.

Inside the Birthday Card

The back of the Birthday Card

]]> Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:00:00 -0400 http://www.footballbooks.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=622:len-shackleton-fund-raising-christmas-card&catid=300:blue-print-2011&Itemid=391
For Dad, Grandad, or Friends, bring back memories of this boyhood hero #SAFC

The Greeting Card
Size: 8inch (20.32cm) x 10inch (25.4cm)
We have reproduced as fine art prints mounted onto Greeting Cards the entire collection, which runs into over 75 all pre 1960's Famous Players/Big Boy Heroes. The print has been mounted onto a quality art board that forms the Greeting card? Inside an insert has been fitted, that gives a short profile of the player, opposite is where you write your greetings. We have limited the print run to 500 of each player, adhered on the back of each card is a Limited Edition Certificate.

Inside the Christmas Card

The back of the Christmas Card

]]> Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:00:00 -0400 http://www.people.co.uk/sport/columnists/jimmy-greaves/2011/10/16/johnson-s-good-eggs-are-cracked-and-rotton-writes-jimmy-greaves-102039-23491006/ THE old chestnut is that football is a gentleman’s game played by thugs, while rugby union is a thug’s game played by gentlemen.

Sports minister Hugh Robertson said the world’s oldest soccer association has “failed to keep up with the changing pace of the modern game.” Read More

]]> Sun, 02 Oct 2011 04:39:40 -0400 http://www.people.co.uk/sport/columnists/jimmy-greaves/2011/10/02/jimmy-greaves-confident-spurs-can-reign-supreme-in-derby-clash-102039-23460523/ IT’S been 17 years since Tottenham last finished above Arsenal and you’d have to go back to my playing days to find a time when Spurs were such hot favourites to defeat their bitter rivals.

To view all the World Cup Girls from around the World click-on the
'World Cup Wags' link on the Red Bar at foot of this webpage.

COPYRIGHT Most of the photos of the girls have come from public domain sources, some are recieved and/or uploaded by users of our site; many others are taken from free sources and sites in the web. None of the photos are taken directly from a photographer’s site with mentioned copyrights.
However we understand the possibility some of the numerous free sources to share another’s images without a permission. That’s why we give to any author/photographer the opportunity to contact us and request removal of his own pictures.
If you find any pictures that violates some of your author rights and you don’t want them published online, please contact us immediately and explain. If you successfully prove your authorship, then your photos will be removed as soon as possible. Thanks for your cooperation!

Taken from 1967 soccer annual measures 8 x 6 inchs

The 1966 World Cup winning team signed by every player also signed by Alf Ramsey and trainer Harold Shepherdson. A very rare piece of memorabilia especially as it has also been signed by Alf Ramsey and Harold Shepherdson. All signatures are in ink blue and black, the signatures are the best examples you are ever likely to come across The document can be viewed in the North Essex area. For Sale at £1250.00 NO OFFERS!

]]> Mon, 19 Sep 2011 19:00:00 -0400 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2039314/Lets-Carling-Cup--Andy-Townsend.html?ITO=1490 Leading your team up the steps at Wembley to collect a trophy is one of the greatest feelings in football. This competition is fantastic and I look back on it with many fond memories. Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:00:05 -0400 http://www.people.co.uk/sport/columnists/jimmy-greaves/2011/09/18/chelsea-should-end-luiz-crisis-and-let-the-defender-attack-102039-23428073/ IT’S very rare indeed to see a defender playing football with a smile on his face.

]]> Thu, 04 Aug 2011 07:06:46 -0400 http://www.footballbooks.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=592:book-sale-glory-glory-my-life-with-spurs-by-bill-nicholson-1984-signed-best-wishes&catid=285:signed-book-sales

The book:   Published by Nicholas Kaye 1955 • Book and dustjacket in very good condition
The book is Signed 'Bill Nicholson' on the publishers title page.

Postage and Packaging: Posted Recorded Delivery within UK Only. Packaging is always of a standard we would be happy to receive ourselves.

Football books and Magazines published in the late 1940's progressing to the early 1960's used a unique photographic process, the photograph was taken on a large format camera the negative (the plate) created an extremely high quality finished print. The print was then hand coloured/tinted giving an innovative effect. In many cases features were added like the crowed in the backgroundsometimes even the ball.

The best known Publisher to use this process was L.T.A Robinson in their Publication The Big Book of Football Champions; Charles Buchan also used the same agency 'Topical Colour Process Syndicate Ltd (London) in the Football Monthly Magazine and the Soccer Gift Book.

The full colour photo above of The Two Stanley's was carefully removed from a 1948 -49 season annual, The photo has been signed as follows: 'Best Wishes Stanley Matthews' and 'Best Regards Stan Mortensen'. The signing of the photo took place between between 1950 - 1951. This is indeed a special piece of football memorabilia probably the only one in existence. Professionally mounted and framed behind non-reflective glass a truly wonderful collector's item that will grace any wall with a football theme.

Both have signed the print in ink pen, both signatures are the best examples you are ever likely to come across Stanley Matthews has signed ‘Stanley’ not just the ‘S’ or ‘Stan’ which feature in most signatures. The document can be viewed in the North Essex area. For Sale at £750.00.

]]> Tue, 19 Oct 2010 06:49:05 -0400