Mac Allister tells Liverpool to sign Tottenham star he rates above Van Dijk

Liverpool are embarking on what is shaping up to be a busy summer transfer window and star midfielder Alexis Mac Allister has now sent a transfer wish to Reds manager Arne Slot
Alexis Mac Allister has urged Liverpool to sign Tottenham's Cristian Romero. Mac Allister is currently away on international duty with Argentina, with Romero one of his team-mates with La Albiceleste.
Together, the duo have helped their country win two successive Copa Americas and the 2022 World Cup. Mac Allister has also starred in Liverpool's Premier League title win, while Romero helped Tottenham to lift the Europa League.
‌
That ended a 17-year trophy drought for Spurs, who are set to undergo major changes this summer. The man who led them to winning the Europa League, Ange Postecoglou, has been sacked.
‌
Brentford boss Thomas Frank is expected to replace the Australian. Meanwhile, Liverpool are also embarking on a busy summer window, with Arne Slot keen to ensure his side retain their place at the top of English football.
They have already been active in the transfer market, with Jeremie Frimpong having arrived while Florian Wirtz and Milos Kerkez are expected to join him. And Mac Allister has now urged a fourth move, singling out Romero.
In an eyebrow-raising endorsement, Mac Allister also revealed that he rates the 27-year-old as being the best defender in the world. Such a rating would place him higher than Liverpool captain Virgil van Dijk.
Mac Allister said after Argentina's draw with Colombia on Tuesday night: 'Oh, Cuti [Romero]. He's a player I love. The way he speaks and plays.
"Sometimes you feel like he's too much because he makes everything so easy. He gives me confidence. For me, he's been the best centre-back in the world for several years.'
‌
Aside from winning the Europa League, it was a miserable season for Spurs, who finished 17th in the Premier League table. That led to suggestions that Romero could move on in the summer window.
But after lifting the Europa League trophy, booking their place in next season's Champions League, Romero appeared to hint that he is happy with life in the capital city.
In a post on social media, he wrote: 'We achieved what we wanted this season as a group, and that's what matters. And….My name is part of the history of this beautiful club.
‌
'I want to thank you all for the love and support every day despite everything, but I have no doubt that staying together led us to success. We must continue, this is the path.
"We are the champions of Europe. As a family from start to finish, we deserved this title. No one trusted us and here we are, closing a great season. Thank you all for the love."

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Daily Mirror

34 minutes ago

• Daily Mirror

British Lions coach Farrell issued major warning ahead of Joe Schmidt reunion

Former Australia captain James Horwill believes the Wallabies can spring a surprise this summer when they meet the challenge of the British and Irish Lions Australian rugby reached its lowest ebb at the 2023 Rugby World Cup but just two years later, Joe Schmidt has the team ready to challenge The British & Irish Lions. That is the view of James Horwill, captain the last time the Lions were in town, and confident the Wallabies are hitting their straps at just the right time. It is a far cry from the tail end of the Eddie Jones era, which featured an ignominious ending at the World Cup in France as Australia crashed out in the group stages for the very first time – a 40-6 defeat to Wales seemingly evidence of a side in terminal decline. Cue the arrival of Schmidt, fresh from success with Leinster and then Ireland, followed by a spell in the New Zealand coaching staff that coincided with a return to form for the All Blacks. ‌ All was not perfect in 2024, a year which saw Australia ship four tries in 10 minutes to Argentina in a record defeat. But by the end of the year, it was clear that the team had started to find their feet under the Kiwi, with a last-gasp win over England at Allianz Stadium the highlight. ‌ And Horwill believes that the performances of Australia's Super Rugby teams should give Wallaby fans even more confidence ahead of the arrival of the Lions. He said: 'There has been some good growth. When you reflect back as a country on the 2023 World Cup, it was very disappointing across the board. But since Joe has come in as coach, and been able to put a bit more stability around the programme, we saw some of the performances improve. 'Looking directly at last year's end-of-year tour, there were some good performances – the performance against England, we very well could have beaten Ireland in Ireland. Overall, I think it was a positive tour and we saw some steps in the right direction. 'This year, Super Rugby has seen much more sustained, consistent performances from our Aussie sides. Maybe towards the back end there has been a little bit of drop off. But early on in the year, we have seen much more consistency from our Super sides, which can only bode well for the Wallabies selectors. 'I think everything is trending in the right direction, with obviously a big challenge coming in the Lions tour.' ‌ Working alongside Schmidt are experienced campaigners Laurie Fisher – the former Gloucester coach – and New Zealand scrum guru Mike Cron. Last but not least, Geoff Parling, who went toe-to-toe with Horwill in that Lions series 12 years ago, will find himself on the other side of the battle this time around. And it is the influence of that support staff that has been crucial, according to Horwill. He said: 'Joe has brought in his experience of his time in Ireland and his ability to put that programme together. It is the stability, not just through Joe but also the assistants. There are very good assistants working with him. ‌ 'While the head coach is obviously important, now more than ever, the coaching group is vital, both at club and Test level. The team he has brought together from a coaching aspect is very impressive. There has been some real clarity of what they are trying to achieve and how they are trying to play. 'And then it's a bit about bringing a bit of confidence back and giving some guys a bit more time in the saddle to perform. There have no doubt been some challenges but if we've got guys available and firing, we've got quite a formidable team.' ‌ What is clear in 2025 is that Australia find themselves with greater options than in recent seasons – particularly in the back row where the stocks are overflowing. In addition to key figures like Rob Valetini, Harry Wilson and Fraser McReight, the likes of Carlo Tizzano from the Western Force and Seru Uru at the Reds would all hope to be in a matchday 23. Add in Josh Kemeny and Pete Samu, both of whom started the Champions Cup final for Northampton Saints and champions Bordeaux-Bègles respectively, and it is clear that Schmidt has some big calls to make. ‌ Horwill reflected: 'If you go through and want to pick a XV, if you go position-by-position, you are asking yourself who would you pick and it's a hard decision. We probably haven't had that in previous years. You can almost see the quality of the squad by the people you leave out, rather than the people you select. 'When he names his squad for the Lions, there are going to be guys who are very good players who deserve to be there but there just aren't enough shirts to get the job. That only bodes well for performance, guys pushing and people chomping at the heels if you don't perform. 'You just have a look and try to pick the back row now and who misses out? Who is on the bench? It will be a fascinating battle. ‌ 'I think Fraser McReight is a difference-maker for us. He's a player that we saw on the end-of-season tour at Wallaby level, the game he didn't play against Scotland, you saw the difference in performance. 'Who plays No.8? Bobby Valetini and Harry Wilson have been putting in huge performances. Those two guys are going to be vital to get that go-forward ball for us against the Lions. And Carlo Tizzano couldn't be doing much more.' ‌ Brought in to replace Jones after his disastrous second spell, Schmidt will move on in 2026, to be succeeded by Reds boss Les Kiss. He and Schmidt have previously worked together with Ireland, while Kiss has plenty of experience of northern hemisphere rugby, having spent time at Ulster and then London Irish prior to them entering administration. While there has been no clear succession plan over the last two Wallaby coach changes, there appears to be a longer-term vision this time around. Horwill said: 'The two guys have worked together previously with Ireland and while they are different, they both have a similar understanding of how they like the game to be played. 'In terms of consistency and continuing the momentum that hopefully we have built by then, going into a home World Cup, I imagine that it will go quite seamlessly. 'Joe is staying on until July next year now and my understanding is that a big part of that is to help Les set up that programme so that they are ready to pick up and run with it and are not starting afresh. 'While Les no doubt has some differences to what Joe does, speaking to the Queensland guys, they all speak incredibly highly of him. He's done some great things with the Reds in the short time he has been there.' Horwill and the Wallabies were part of a Lions series for the ages 12 years ago. With Schmidt at the helm and a team on the up, there is reason to believe this summer's tour could be just as entertaining.

The Guardian

38 minutes ago

• The Guardian

‘A perfect storm': multi-club ownership, Crystal Palace and a looming court threat

In the waterfront offices of Uefa's House of European Football headquarters in Nyon, the legal team are preparing for an unwanted trip around Lake Geneva to Lausanne. Over the course of many internal meetings since Crystal Palace inadvertently provided Uefa with the toughest test yet of its multi-club ownership (MCO) rules by winning the FA Cup, it has become increasingly clear the ultimate arbiter on the issue is likely to be the court of arbitration for sport (Cas). 'We're going to find out if our MCO rules stand up to scrutiny as, one way or another, it looks like we're going to Cas,' says one source at Uefa, resigned to the issue of whether Palace can compete in next season's Europa League being placed in the hands of that Lausanne court. Uefa has been liaising closely with Palace, with sources claiming the issue of John Textor's dual shareholding in the club and Lyon – who qualified for the Europa League by finishing sixth in Ligue 1 – was flagged by the governing body long before the 1 March deadline for resolving MCO issues. The American is in advanced discussions over selling his 44.9% stake in Palace to the New York Jets owner, Woody Johnson, which may help the club's cause, although there is no prospect of the deal being completed before Uefa has to make a decision. The case is emblematic of the confusion surrounding club ownership and the regulatory issues facing the sport, and Uefa has delayed a ruling until the related case of Lyon's financial problems has been resolved. The DNCG – French football's financial watchdog – is auditing Lyon's accounts after imposing a provisional relegation to Ligue 2 last year owing to the club's debt levels, with a final outcome expected next week. Relegation and a ban from European competition for Lyon would make Uefa's life a lot easier, although both seem unlikely. 'It's a perfect storm,' says a sympathetic figure at another club. 'Everything that could go wrong from Uefa's point of view has done. We have three clubs involved [Palace, Lyon and Brøndby, who are owned by the Palace shareholder David Blitzer], and two multi-club groups. There's a complex ownership group at Palace who don't appear to communicate very well, and a surprise FA Cup winner. Not to mention Lyon's financial issues. You couldn't make it up really.' Palace sources acknowledge they are working with Uefa amid belief on both sides that an accommodation is wanted, but two factors beyond either party's control could count against them. First, Cas last month upheld Fifa's decision to expel the Mexican club León from the Club World Cup because they are part of the same ownership group as another qualifier, Pachuca. The owner, Grupo Pachuca, had attempted to park its León shareholding in a separate trust but this move did not satisfy Fifa or Cas. In another complication Nottingham Forest, who will be moved from the Conference League to the Europa League if Palace are kicked out, may go to Cas if denied that promotion. A source close to Forest's owner, Evangelos Marinakis, told the Guardian the Greek billionaire was opposed to many of the moves to regulate football and was prepared to take on Uefa. There are clear financial incentives to do so. Whereas Chelsea earned £21m in prize money from winning the Conference League in the past season, Tottenham's Europa League triumph could be worth well over £100m because it also delivered a Champions League place. Palace are worried the León ruling has set a precedent that could work against them. At Uefa there is a feeling that it would rather face Forest at Cas than have its multi-club framework tested in court by Palace. One figure at a European team with direct experience of multi-club contortions believes Uefa will give Palace every opportunity to pass muster, concurring that the governing body's regulations could be brought tumbling down in the event Textor and company mounted a challenge. An examination brought about by Forest would, they suggested, give the existing rules a far better chance of holding firm. Confirmation by Cas this week of the League of Ireland side Drogheda's expulsion from the Conference League owing to a multi-club breach has heightened concerns in Nyon, but the cases are different. Drogheda had qualified by winning the Irish Cup last November yet their owner, Trivela Group, failed to meet Uefa's March deadline, and unlike Textor the American investors are majority owners of two clubs: Drogheda and Denmark's Silkeborg. Uefa had caused disquiet in some quarters by shifting that deadline forward from last year's June date. Some figures involved in club acquisition have expressed surprise that Drogheda were not able to win their case at Cas. 'Uefa are trying to be flexible, but the Fifa v Club León case is making it harder for them,' a source said. 'Cas upheld Fifa's rules, which are very similar to Uefa's, so the precedent is there. The Cas ruling was based on the nature of the blind trust and the importance of the regulatory process – ie dates and deadlines. To put it simply Palace haven't complied, but Uefa want to make it work.' There is some acknowledgment at Uefa that elements of its MCO rules are not fit for purpose, although it would prefer to redraft them in Nyon than put them at the mercy of the court. There is nothing in Article 5 of Uefa's rules detailing whether Palace or Brøndby should be given precedence if both end up in next season's Conference League, for example. In ordinary circumstances it would be Brøndby by virtue of their higher league position, as stated in the rules, but Palace could also have a claim if parachuted in from the more prestigious Europa League. Sign up to Football Daily Kick off your evenings with the Guardian's take on the world of football after newsletter promotion Uefa's MCO rules have been in place without many revisions for 24 years, although one significant change was made 12 months ago when the regulations were relaxed to permit a club part of a multi-ownership group to compete in a different competition. Article 5 was drafted in 2001 after a legal challenge from Tottenham's owner, Enic, the first multi-club operation in the Premier League, after AEK Athens were blocked from taking part in the 1998-99 Uefa Cup because their sister club Slavia Prague had also qualified. The initial rule stated that 'control or influence' over more than one club was not allowed, but it was not tested until 2017 when RB Leipzig and Red Bull Salzburg qualified for the Champions League, which led to the wording being altered to 'decisive influence'. What had been a rare occurrence is now an annual problem for Uefa, with Aston Villa, Brighton and Toulouse allowed to play in Europe during the 2023-24 season only when their owners put more distance between them and Vitória de Guimarães, Union Saint-Gilloise and Milan respectively. The same issue affected Manchester City and Girona as well as Manchester United and Nice a year later. The fact that neither Girona nor Manchester United joined their partner clubs in qualifying for next season's European competitions may have kicked a further conundrum down the road. Their respective ownership groups were allowed what was, in theory, a short-term exemption last season by placing one of their clubs' shares in a blind trust until 1 July this year. One club owner wonders how Uefa would have responded if those sides had reached the same tournament for a second consecutive year. It is unclear whether they would have been allowed to roll over into a further 12 months of blind trust holding. Multi-club ownership is growing constantly; figures shared with the Guardian by the MCO Insights consultancy suggest more than 800 top- and second-tier clubs could be involved by 2030. That would roughly double the current number. By that point it would surely be uncontrollable by current rules. Simon Leaf, head of sport at the law firm Mishcon de Reya, believes Uefa and other governing bodies need clearer regulations to avoid being repeatedly taken to court. 'We are seeing an increasing number of clubs looking to use various legal avenues – in particular, competition law – to try to challenge regulations that they dislike,' Leaf says. 'This trend is likely to continue, making it much harder for leagues and governing bodies to regulate their competitions. 'On the Palace matter it is hard to have too much sympathy with Uefa given they already showed themselves to be willing to bend their own rules on MCOs last summer – and despite their efforts to strengthen the regulations since then, the bar has now been set. 'Either way, MCOs are not going away, and so football's governing bodies need to find a way to properly deal with these issues so that they are dealt with in the boardroom rather than the courtroom.'

The Guardian

38 minutes ago

• The Guardian

America is showing us football in its final dictator form – we can't afford to look away

Should we give it a miss? Is it best to stay away from next summer's Trump-Infantino US World Cup? Depending on your politics the answer may be a resounding no or a bemused shrug. Some will see pure drive-by entertainment. Why would anyone want to boycott a month-long end-of-days Grand Soccer Parade staged by two of the world's most cinematic egomaniacs? But it is a question that has been asked, and will be asked a lot more in the next year. Those who intend to travel will need to answer it by action or omission. Would it be better for dissenting media and discomfited football fans to simply no-platform this event? The picture is at least clearer now. After a week of the new steroid-fed Club World Cup we know what this thing will feel like and who it will benefit. There is no mystery with these events now, no sense of politics lurking coyly out of sight. Under Gianni Infantino Fifa has become a kind of mobile propaganda agency for indulgent regimes, right out in front twirling its pompoms, hitching its leotard, twerking along at the front of the parade like an unholy Uncle Sam. So we had the grisly sight this week of Donald Trump not just borrowing football's light, but wrestling it on to his lap and ruffling its hair, burbling like a random hot-button word generator about women and trans people, while Juventus players gawped in the background. We have the spectacle of both club and international football hijacked as a personal vanity platform for Infantino, the dictator's fluffer, the man who sold the world not once but twice. Infantino's status as a wildly over-promoted administrator has always had an operatic quality. But there is something far more sinister in his political over-reach, out there nodding along at the latest Oval Office freak-off, helping to legitimise each divisive statement, each casual erasure of process. Nobody gave Fifa a mandate to behave like this. Its mission is to promote and regulate. And yet here is it acting as a commercial disruptor in its own sport and as a lickspittle to the powerful, disregarding the human rights fluff and political neutrality enshrined in its 'statutes', offering zero transparency or accountability. To date Infantino's only public interface in the US is a 'fireside chat', AKA approved PR interview, at the Dick's Sporting Goods stage in New York. There he is, up there on the Stage of Dick's, mouthing platitudes to pre-programmed questions, high on his own power supply, the newly acquired Gianni glow-up eyebrows arched in a patina of inauthenticity. They say celebrity is a mask that eats into the face. Take a look at what football can do to you. And so far this tournament has presented the full grotesquery in store. What is the Club World Cup like on the ground? Pretty much the same as it is on the screen given this event is invisible in physical form beyond the stadiums. The key takeaway is confirmation of the weirdly jackboot, cult-like nature of the Infantino-shaped universe. Even the optics are trying to tell you something, all black holes, hard surfaces, gold, power-flash. Why does Fifa have its own vast lighted branding on the pitch like a global super-corporation or a military dictatorship? What is the Club World Cup logo supposed to represent, with its weird angular lines, the void at its heart? An obscure Stalinist plug socket? Darth Vader's space fighter? Not to mention the bizarre obsession with that shapeless and indefinable trophy, present on the big screen in every ground in weird scrolling closeup, one minute a Sauron's eye, the next some kind of finger-snapping torture instrument, with its secret draws full of ectoplasm, a dead crow, the personal effects of Pol Pot. Mainly there is the very openly manipulative nature of the spectacle, football in its final dictator form, with a sense of utter disdain for its captive consumer-subjects. Yes, they will literally put up with anything if we pipe it into their smartphones. So here is beauty, love, colour, connection, the things you're hard-wired to respond to, cattle-prodded into your nervous system for the benefit of assorted interests. Here is football reimagined as a kind of mass online pornography. Fifa even calls its media website Fifahub. With all this in mind some have suggested a World Cup and US boycott is the correct and logical response, not least in two recent articles published in these pages. The organisation Human Rights Watch has carried a warning about the implications of staging the tournament under the Trump regime. Guardian readers and social media voices have asked the same question from all sides of discourse. The hostile versions of this: if you don't like it then just don't come, we don't want you anyway [expletives deleted]. If you were worried about us in Qatar, western imperialist, why are you going to the US? And from the liberal left a concern that to report on sport is also to condone a regime that sends deportation officers to games, imposes travel bans on Fifa members and is edging towards another remote war. And all the while marches football around in a headlock, snapping its underwear elastic, saying thanks, Gianni, for the distracting firework show. This is not a normal situation. So why normalise it? Why give it legitimising light and heat? And yet, one week into the World Cup's rehearsal dinner, the only logical response is: you just have to go. Not only would a boycott serve no practical purpose; it would be counterproductive, an act of compliance for a regime that will happily operate without an opposing voice on the stage. There are two structural reasons for this. And a third that relates to the United States itself, or at least to the idea of the United States, to its possibilities, which are not defined by Trump, by the latest military action, or by Infantino. Most obviously, if you leave the stage you abandon the argument to the other person. Dissent remains a useful commodity. However pointless, ineffective and landlocked the process of pointing out the flaws and contradictions may have become, it is necessary to keep doing so. Qatar 2022 was a dictator show that simply sailed above the criticisms. But someone, however minor, has to make them, to offer at least some kind of counter-view. No-platforming an autocrat's show makes no sense on a basic level. These people would prefer you weren't there in any case. Whereas in reality the people platforming and enabling Trump and Infantino are not journalists trying to give another version of events, but the people who keep voting them into power, friendly dictators, subservient football associations and client media who will be present whatever happens. Fifa and its Saudi-backed broadcast partner Dazn are glossing up an army of in-house influencers and content-wanglers to generate a wall of approving noise. Is it healthy if these are the only voices at the show? Shouting into a void may have little effect. But you still have to shout. Sign up to Football Daily Kick off your evenings with the Guardian's take on the world of football after newsletter promotion Second, football does still have a value that steps outside the normal rules of show and spectacle. This is why it is coveted, courted and used like a weapon. Last week these pages carnied a logical, entirely legitimate wider view, written by two academics from City University New York, which concluded that a boycott was not just an option but 'necessary'. At the same time, the article defined the football World Cup as something that basically has no value, 'spectacles of recreation designed to distract people from their day-to-day lives, cultural and political branding opportunities for their hosts. For authoritarians, they have long been used as a tool to distract from or launder stains of human rights violations and corruption.' Which is definitely true. But it also reads like a vision of sport defined by the most joyless version of AI invented. Under this version of events no World Cup or Olympics would have taken place, because they are essentially worthless, home only to malevolent actors, lacking any notion of colour, human spirt, joy, art, beauty or connection. Who knows, maybe this is accurate now. It is undeniably true that the idea of football as a collective people's game is fairly absurd. Fans of football clubs struggle with this state of cognitive dissonance on a daily basis, the contrast of legacy identity and hard commercial reality. Liverpool are a community club owned by a US hedge fund. Manchester City see themselves as outsiders and underdogs, and are also owned by the Abu Dhabi royal family. Football is the enemy these days. But both sides of this are important, because without that emotional connection, without the act of faith that enables the warm, human part, everything becomes diminished, all our institutions toxic shells. To give up is to abandon sport for ever to the dictators and the sales people, to say, yeah, this just belongs to you now. No-platforming something that still means connection and culture and history. Are we ready for that yet? There will be another version of the present at some point. The final point is about the US, a deeply divided and unhappy place right now, and a much-derided host nation, not least by members of its own populace. What has it been like here? The evidence is that an actual World Cup is going to be very hard to negotiate, spread over vast spaces, with baffling travel times, unreliable infrastructure, and a 24-hour attention industry that is already busy gorging on every other spectacle available to the human race. The US has a reputation for peerless razzmatazz around public events. And while this is undeniably true with cultural spectacles it invented – rock'n'roll, presidential races, galactic shopping malls, enormous food, rural tornadoes, its own continental-scale sports – the US's version of other people's specialities, from cheese to professional football, can seem a little mannered. But the fact remains the actual games have been quite good. There has been a European-flavoured focus on tickets and empty seats. But 25,000 people on a weekday to watch Chelsea in an ill-defined game is decent evidence of willingness to stage this thing and develop the market. The dismay at 3,500 turning up to Mamelodi Sundowns v Ulsan HD in Orlando overlooks the upside, the fact that 3,500 people actually turned up to Mamelodi Sundowns v Ulsan HD in Orlando. Sundowns get 9,000-odd even at home. How many of their South African fans can afford to travel for this? Fifa, which uses its faux-benevolence cleverly, will point out an African team received $2m (£1.7m) for winning that game. Do we want to develop something or not? A wider point is that football here is a game beloved of immigrant populations. There is a different kind of warmth, often among people without a platform or the means to make it to the matches so far. The waiter who adores Cristiano Ronaldo. The taxi driver who wants to talk for 40 minutes about Chelsea's wastefulness with academy players. The cop who loves the Colombian national team and is desperate for his son to see them in the flesh. As for the US itself, it still feels like false equivalence to state that this is now an actual dictatorship, a lost land, a place that doesn't deserve this show because of its flaws and structural violence. This has always been a pretty brutal nation, human life as a constant pressure wave, mainlining heat and light into your veins, but also always taking a bite. The opening week in Miami captured this feeling, football's most hungrily transactional event staged on a sunken green peninsula, a place where the sea seems to be punching holes in the land, but which is still constantly throbbing with life and warmth and beautiful things. There is a nostalgic attachment to the idea of the US for people of a certain age, 20th-century holdovers, brought up on its flaws and imperialism, but also its culture and brilliance. But for the visitor America does seem in a worse state than it did 20 years ago. There is an unhappiness, a more obvious underclass, a sense of neglected parts and surfaces. All the things that were supposed to be good – cars, plenitude, markets, voting, empowerment, civil rights, cultural unity, all the Cokes being good and all the Cokes being the same – seem to have gone bad. But this is also a democracy with an elected leader, albeit one with a lust for executive power and some sinister tendencies. Mainly the US seems to have a massive self-loathing problem. Perhaps you can say it is correct in this, that Trump is enacting actual harms. But Trump is also a symptom of that alienation and perceived decline. He's an algorithm-driven apparition. Say his name enough times and this cartoon will appear. America remains a great, messy, dangerous, flawed idea of a place. What else is the world currently offering? This is in any case where football will now live for the next year, an unquestioning supplicant in the form of its own autocratic leader. The game is not an indestructible product. It can be stretched thin and ruined by greed, is already at war with itself in many key places. It will at some point be necessary to pay the ferryman, even as the US is packed away a year from now and the sails set at Fifa House for all corners of the globe and then Saudi Arabia. However stormy the prospects, it is not quite the moment to abandon this ship for good.