As the contenders continue jostling ahead of tomorrow’s contest in Zurich to elect a new President to replace Blatter, I have to say I’m pretty disappointed myself.

Okay, the Appeal Committee has reduced the eight-year ban imposed by the Adjudicatory Chamber of the Ethics Committee, and turned down a further appeal from the Investigatory Chamber of the Ethics Committee, which claimed the Adjudicatory Chamber of the Ethics Committee ban was too lenient.

But surely there must be another tier of judgement within FIFA that remains unexploited? An Explicatory Chamber, perhaps? Or a Ruminatory Chamber? Or a Supplicatory Discriminatory Alligatory Chamber?

No? Oh well. As Blatter indicates, it’s off to the back-stop of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne. That said, this unappealing match could yet go into extra-time as the decision of CAS, being a Swiss arbitration organisation, can be appealed to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland…

Amid this maelstrom of jurisdiction, there remains the alleged "disloyal" payment of CHF2 million (£1.5 million/$2 million/€1.8 million) made to the Frenchman by the Swiss in 2011 - an anomaly that still sticks out - unexcused and, so far at least, inexcusable.

Meanwhile the Presidential election is set to go ahead as originally scheduled after CAS rejected a request from one of the five candidates, Prince Ali Bin Al-Hussein of Jordan, that it be held over until the integrity of the process could be maintained by the provision of transparent voting booths and independent scrutineers.

Prince Ali argued that having transparent booths - which he himself has provided for use in Zurich - would prevent voters taking photos of their voting slips to prove they had followed voting instructions, thus allowing them to vote freely.

His initial appeal was turned down by the FIFA Ad-hoc Electoral Committee. Just be clear - FIFA rejecting transparency. Literally.

The response from CAS: “The request for provisional measures has been rejected by the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division. The full order with grounds will be communicated in a few days.”

No doubt that deeply relevant information will be pored over by Prince Ali and his team in due course.

This would all be funny if it wasn’t so serious. What kind of a message does it send out to the sporting world to reduce a ban on the two most powerful figures in the world’s football administration from eight years to six?  

The “strong mitigating factors” which have determined this adjustment. Can’t be that strong, can they? Some might say - indeed, the Investigatory Chamber of the Ethics Committee has said - that the factors militating in the opposite direction are so strong as to require a weightier punishment.

The Extraordinary FIFA Congress 2016 is certainly extraordinary by any normal judgement - but sadly for the Beautiful Game, no more than Business as Usual for FIFA.

It is against this farcical background that Olympic marketing guru Michael Payne tweeted on Wednesday: “Would love to know who is really advising FIFA comms - a future Harvard case study on how to totally get it wrong”.

But in recent days other communications  departments have been offering spirited resistance to the notion that FIFA have a monopoly on the inexplicable, the indefensible and the ill-judged.

Exhibit one - Team GB’s directive on non-Olympic sponsors planning to wish their athletes good luck at the Rio 2016 Games. Under the strident headings “Deemed Consent - Principles” and “No Right Of Association”, two faux tweets involving @johndoe are offered as a guide on what is Not Allowed.

Just in case anyone should be in doubt, three points are made specifically under a big red cross indicating Not Allowed: “posts appearing during the Games Period, Refer to the athlete’s performance at the Games, #teamgb and ‘GOLD medal’ not allowed.”

Cue a series of responses questioning how such transgressions could be enforced, accusations of “marketing and branding police gone mad, echoes of LOCOG in 2012”.

But perhaps everyone is over-reacting. Just imagine you are a sponsor not wealthy enough to be part of the official Olympic network, but wealthy enough to have offered an athlete help and support in order to get them to Rio 2016.

There are still options open to you! You could, for instance, tweet the following message: “Wishing @AthleteX good luck in advance for his event later this year in a big competition.” You could do that right now, or at any time until the Games begin on August 5.

Or, after the Games are over: “Congrats to @AthleteX on his medal of a certain colour!!!” #ateam

The only thing you have to remember, as a dedicated sponsor is this - once your protégé steps into the Olympic rings, they are lost to you. It’s like taking your kid to school and handing him or her over to the teachers. Walk away. Get into the car. Get over yourself.

There’s more international competition on the Comms front, however. A spokesman for Rio 2016 this week had the admittedly pig of a task of putting spin on the announcement that many events will not now assign specific seats to ticket holders - the latest cost-cutting policy as Brazil finds itself in its worst recession for more than 20 years:

"The general admission system, in which spectators do not have a pre-allocated specific seat, allows for a more flexible movement of spectators inside the venues and contributes to creating a vibrant and positive atmosphere among the fans.”

The same kind of flexibility, perhaps, that one used to witness on the football terraces of England, illustrating so plainly the strength of Darwin’s principle about the survival of the fittest.

The same kind of vibrancy, no doubt, that one encounters on a Ryanair flight as push comes to shove in the struggle to find a seat before the music stops and the seat-belt sign goes on…