Given the number of times I read that football agent Jorge Mendes won the summer transfer window, it is ironic that his profession stands technically to be legislated out of existence before the end of the 2014-15 season.

If world governing body FIFA gets its way, a new regulatory system dealing not with licensed agents, but with "intermediaries" will take effect on April 1 2015. Some, including agents I have spoken to who predict that the new rules will produce chaos, believe presumably that this date is all too appropriate.

One of the key points of the new regime is that intermediaries would not require a licence. Indeed, to judge by an email I received from an individual who had planned to secure his agent's qualification, only to be told that all examinations had been cancelled, in at least one country it is already impossible to actually qualify as a licensed football agent.

Instead, a registration system would be set up by national associations, and intermediaries registered for each deal they are involved in. Intermediaries would also have to sign a declaration for submission to the appropriate national association. This asserts, for example, that the person in question has an "impeccable reputation" and confirms in particular that "no criminal sentence has ever been imposed upon me for a financial or violent crime".

To me, it is as if mini-cars are to be allowed to operate in a market previously reserved for black cabs. However, FIFA argues that one of the main shortfalls of the current regulatory framework is that only 25 to 30 per cent of the international transfers are concluded through licensed agents.

FIFA's new regulatory system could, some fear, spark chaos ©Getty Images



FIFA also stresses that the aim of the reform was "never to deregulate the governance of the activities of players' agents, but to propose a new system that is more transparent and simple to administer and implement, resulting, in turn, in better enforcement at national level".

What will be changed, FIFA continues, is "the focus of the regulations, away from regulating the access to the activity, towards a better control of the activity itself".

FIFA is also seeking to exert its influence on the vexed issue of agents' fees, saying the new regulations "attempt to provide for an overall rationalisation of fees paid to intermediaries by setting a limit of three per cent of the player's basic gross income, or of the transfer compensation, as a recommendation".

Quite how much of a difference this would make depends on whose assessment of the present state of the market you place most credence in. In January 2013, FIFA was reported to have said that agents took commissions averaging 28 per cent of cross-border deals in 2012. Yet when I heard Omar Ongaro, a member of FIFA's legal affairs unit, talk about the issue some four years ago, he suggested that the then average was about 10 per cent.

The Premier League has published figures showing that its 20 clubs paid £96.67 million ($157.8 million/€121.7 million) to agents over the year to September 30 2013. Their transfer spending in this period was some £750 million ($1.2 billion/€944.2 million), but I would presume that the £96.67 million would cover fees earned for contract extensions too.

A report by the CIES football observatory in February 2012 on football agents in the biggest five European markets, meanwhile, estimated that commissions paid to agents accounted for "about 3.5 per cent of the total money spent in salaries and transfer fees".

Unfashionable as it is to show any sympathy for agents, or intermediaries, as I suppose we are going to have to get used to calling them, who are popularly portrayed as scavengers sucking blood out of the game, I find it just as hard, frankly, to sympathise with clubs, the alleged victims


Clubs, to a significant degree, have brought this situation on themselves. They want success yesterday. That means they generally won't give the traditional football scapegoat - the coach/manager - time. So he, in turn, can't afford to give young players time to grow into their role. Safer to buy in the piece of his jigsaw puzzle that he thinks he is missing ready-made - an approach that very often will mean dealing with an agent, I'm sorry, intermediary.

Manchester United's Class of '92 shows patience from clubs can pay ©Getty Images



I don't think it is a coincidence that the most noteworthy efflorescence of young talent at an English club seen in recent times - Manchester United's Class of '92 - came at a club that first had the patience to back manager Sir Alex Ferguson through three-and-a-half trophy-less seasons.

And if the short-termism of clubs, themselves stuffed to the gunnels with TV money, has had the effect of enriching top agents and their clients, it is little more than half a century since the, er, boot was very much on the other foot. Read Gary Imlach's hauntingly brilliant My Father and Other Working-Class Football Heroes for a vivid evocation of life when the average footballer's wages were £8 ($13.06/€10.07) a week. It should be required reading at every club academy.

It has become customary, as the war of words against agents has been prosecuted, for the sums paid to them in fees to be referred to as money "leaving the game". Yet the cash spent by players on tattoos and Lamborghinis, and by top executives on school fees and holiday homes, leaves the game just as definitively. And thank heavens for the sake of the wider economy that it does.

If I thought that eliminating agents, and hence cutting the costs run up by clubs in assembling and remunerating their playing staff, would result in lower prices for the everyday punter and/or increased investment in youth development, it might be a cause worth backing. But that is not how the brutal logic of the free market works. While demand for tickets outstrips supply, prices will tend to rise not fall. The money that used to be swallowed by agents, meanwhile, would more than likely pump yet more inflation into the transfer market or, at clubs not craving trophies or haunted by relegation, augment the rate of return enjoyed by owners.

The new regime is not yet a fait accompli: an agents' body has lodged a complaint and a challenge on anti-competitive grounds with the European Commission. Chances are you will be hearing an increasing amount on the subject between now and April Fools' day. When you do, it is perhaps worth reflecting on who stands to gain, as well as who stands to lose out, if the new rules do duly come into effect.

To be or not to be. That is the question.

Hamlet's angst seems trite compared to the same poser faced by Scotland this week. To be or not to be Independent.

Actually, the question is simply Yes or No.

But it seems the two most crucial words are neither yes nor no, but Don't Know.

The Don't Knows in the opinion polls before the referendum are said to number around 20 per cent - so ultimately the current minority will decide Scotland's future; its politics and geopolitics, its economics, its currency and crucially for much of such a passionate population, its sport.

Who knows what the Don't Knows ultimately will favour?

Ironically, there is so much we don't know about the whole conundrum, not least the effect it will have on the games Scotland plays, who plays them and with whom, for generations to come.

Issues are being aired and angrily debated, if a little belatedly as panic sets in at Westminster and among those who orchestrate and administrate British sport.

The British government obviously hasn't a clue what will happen in the event of Scotland declaring a blue and white UDI. Neither does the government of sport on either side of the border, however much they may try to convince us otherwise.

A "yes" vote will spark tremendous uncertainty on both sides of the border
©AFP/Getty Images



Then only certainty is uncertainty. It's an absolute mess. A maze of muddled thinking and conjecture.

There isn't a multi-sports body that has a clear view on what may lie ahead.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) doesn't know. Nor the British Olympic Association, UK Sport, Sport England, sportscotland, or the umbrella "sports parliament", the Sport and Recreation Alliance, who at least have canvassed member organisations.

But they have to admit the overall reaction is one of uncertainty and lack of clarity. Everyone seems to be scratching their heads, simply acknowledging that it is one heck of a situation, but what to do about it no-one knows.

Scotland's handful of sporting superstars - who would certainly be a loss to a united GB - don't seem to know either. Or even want to know.

Take Andy Murray. Is he is likely to miss out on defending his Olympic title in Rio if Scotland decides to go it alone?

Sources at the IOC hint it would be "virtually impossible" to endorse Scotland as a separate country in time for the 2016 Games. So Murray, like other Scottish sportsfolk, will be sidelined unless they continue to choose to compete for Team GB, which surely would then make them ineligible to represent their new native country in the following Olympics in 2020.

Or, as insidethegames has pointed out, take up an IOC offer of participation under the Olympic flag with the Olympic anthem greeting them rather than "Flower of Scotland" should they make it to the winners' podium.

Hardly what Alex Salmond would want to see or hear.

Would Andy Murray have to sit out a title defence at Rio 2016, or compete under the British or Olympic Flag rather than that of a newly independent Scotland? ©Getty Images



The yes-no vote presents an agonising tug-of-war for Scottish sport, and particularly those like Murray, who has been competing for Great Britain for 16 years. Murray, who does not have a vote as he now is resident in England - his Wimbledon home is just a short volley away from the scene of his history-making triumph last year - has always refused to be drawn on his views of Scottish independence, but asked during the recent US Championships who he would represent should Scotland split he said: "I imagine I would be playing for Scotland," adding: "But I haven't thought much about it yet because it is not looking too likely." That was before the latest polls dramatically narrowed the gap so he obviously now has some serious thinking to do.

Another Scottish high priest of sport who finds himself in a similarly tricky situation is Sir Craig Reedie. A former chair of the British Olympic Association and a principal architect of a successful London 2012, the 73-year-old Glaswegian is an influential IOC vice-president. He is known to be opposed to Scottish independence, yet wearing his IOC hat would be expected to help expedite Scotland's wish to compete separately in Rio.  However, he says he doubts there would be sufficient time for this to be ratified. "It would be very, very difficult because the IOC has tended to use recognition by the United Nations and I have no idea how long that would take."

We know too that it would also call into question Reedie's own role. Could he still represent GB on the IOC if Scotland, where he was born and still lives, becomes an independent nation?

Salmond has often been accused of using Caledonian sporting achievements for political gain. Not only did he pointedly flourish the Saltire in the Royal Box as Murray dutifully draped himself in the Union Jack after winning Wimbledon, but during London 2012 he had issued a good luck message urging people to cheer on the "Scolympians" - a combination of the words 'Scottish" and 'Olympians.'

This led to David Wilkie, their Olympic gold medal-winning swimmer, accusing the Scottish National Party government of trying to "hijack" the Commonwealth Games for political ends - a claim dismissed as unsubstantiated by Salmond's spokespeople.

Glasgow's successful staging of the Commonwealth Games this summer, and the success of home athletes, could sway some votes towards a "yes" ©Getty Images



I was asked by BBC Scotland last week (would they still be able to call themselves BBC I wonder) whether I still held the view I expressed here that Glasgow's superb staging of the Commonwealth Games, and the any successes achieved in them by Scottish athletes, might help sway a yes vote.

I still believe it could if the feelgood factor, particularly among impressionable younger voters, has remained lodged in the consciousness.

However, my Glaswegian son-in-law, now domiciled in Surrey and so like Murray does not have a vote, disagrees.

A Celtic fan, he believes it more likely that fellow Scots would only be influenced by sporting issues to put their X in the yes box had their football team actually beaten world champions Germany in the recent European Championships qualifier. Such joy really would have been unconfined.

The greatest temptation for sporting Scots to subscribe to the view that we are better together is based on funding and facilities.

Around 11 per cent of the athletes on UK Sport's world-class programme, which distributes £350 million ($565 million/€437 million) of exchequer and National Lottery funding every four years, are Scottish. But Scottish athletes made a contribution to one in five of the 65 medals won in London by Team GB.

British sport is 60 per cent funded by lottery (and pro rata ticket sales are said to be high in Scotland than in England) and 40 per cent by the UK Government.

The lottery funding settlement for Scotland, should it become independent, remains up in the air ©Getty Images



Supporters of Scottish nationalism have insisted that its share of the actual lottery investment in sport - estimated at around £37 million ($59 million/€46 million) – should simply be transferred to sportscotland. But the Government is understood to be adamant that the entire basis of the lottery funding settlement would have to be revisited.

Then there is another unanswered question. For whom will Scots compete in the qualifying competitions in the 18 months before the Games? Would Britain continue to select Scots in its teams in the wake of a yes vote?

Would UK Sport, which funds elite athletes, continue to bankroll Scots? Would it allow them to continue to train at its elite performance centres, most notably English Institute of Sport in Sheffield?

UK Sport's chief executive, Liz Nicholl, can only say at the moment that a yes vote would weaken the medal chances of both Scottish athletes and their British counterparts.

The British Olympic Association (BOA), chaired by Lord Coe, said it had not formed a view on what it would do if Scotland voted for independence.

"At this point in time, Team GB is made up of athletes from all eligible home nations and territories," say the BOA. "Once the referendum result is known, we will look at the possible consequences for a British Olympic team and act accordingly."

In other words, like the rest of us, even Lord Coe and co are Don't Knows.

All we do know is that should Scotland decide to do its own thing, Olympic sport will be left with a whole raft of problematical questions plus the real danger that any chance of Murray and co travelling the rocky road to Rio behind the Saltire rather than the Union Jack will disappear into a Scotch mist.

So never mind the Prince of Denmark's dilemma. What will happen if Scotland says "aye" on Independence Day is more akin to another Shakespearean tragedy much closer to home: Macbeth. "Hubble, bubble toil and trouble" Yes indeed. A real Witches' Brew.

Alan Hubbard is an award-winning sports columnist for The Independent on Sunday and a former sports editor of The Observer. He has covered a total of 16 Summer and Winter Games, 10 Commonwealth Games, several football World Cups and world title fights from Atlanta to Zaire.

I was impressed at how sport was so strongly at the centre of attention during the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, with political matters relegated to the back seat.

But, fast forward a few weeks, and the country is awash with the fervour of the impending Scottish Independence referendum.

On Thursday (September 18), all residents of Scotland over the age of 16 - so including my staunchly English cousin who has just started as a BP graduate in Aberdeen, but not a born and bred Scotsman, who has just moved south of the border - will cast a historic vote that could pose huge ramifications for the rest of the United Kingdom, not to mention farther afield.

As someone interested in history and politics, I am finding it all absolutely fascinating. Aside from the issues themselves, you have the personalities involved, the strategy of the campaign trail and the never-ending deluge of statistics, predictions and polls, plus the vast number of issues caught in the cross-fire, be they in relation to politics, energy, defence and, of course, sport.

For one of the first occasions in my memory, the three major British political parties are united in their opposition to independence, and virtually all arms of the English press are also singing from the same unionist hymn sheet. This makes for some fascinating coverage, with a mock-up of Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond with the haircut of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, to illustrate the possible alliance between the two regimes, my favourite.

The Scottish independence question is becoming ever more interesting with just three days to go until the referendum ©Getty Images



But you also have to remember that everything you read is subject to vested interests either way, with the prospects of a Scottish Olympic team at Rio 2016 a good example of this.

Last week, international Olympic Committee (IOC) President Thomas Bach spoke about how they respect "democratic decisions" and, if a yes vote was to occur, they would "safeguard the interests of the athletes" and try their best to include Scottish participants in Rio.

As well as Reuters, to whom the comments were initially made, these words were reported by all of the Olympic press, including insidethegames, as well as by the Scottish Herald. But no other newspaper or website in England seems to have done so, focusing only on the words of Great Britain's IOC vice-president Sir Craig Reedie, who has said it will be "difficult" for a Scottish team to be set up in time for Rio.

Although Bach's words do not really signify much difference from those of Sir Craig, the reluctance to publish something which comes even close to being positive for the pro-independence side indicated just how partisan the media, like all other platforms, has become in this most divisive of contests.

Lengthy discussions involving the likes of Thomas Bach (left) and Sir Craig Reedie will have to take place should Scotland vote for independence ©Getty Images



To be able to compete in the Olympics, a country must fulfil two objectives. It must be an "independent state recognised by the international community", a stipulation that is currently defined by membership of the United Nations, and it must have at least five national sporting federations recognised by the respective international body. As, in the case of a yes-vote, there will be an 18 month preparation before independence is formally declared on March 24, 2016, there would be very little time to fulfil either part.

Recent reports suggesting that European Union countries were mulling a possible future sports boycott against Vladimir Putin's Russia triggered two immediate thoughts.

1. How quickly the world can change. It was only at the start of this year, after all, that the furore over LGBT rights appeared ultimately to have reinforced what has tended to be the mainstream view on sporting boycotts for the past couple of decades: that they mainly hurt the countries embarking on them, in particular their athletes.

While a number of political leaders found reasons to stay away from the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympic Opening Ceremony, at no stage did there seem more than the slenderest chance that any of the major teams would pull out of what was a spectacular Russian prestige event.

2. How extensively world sporting leaders have bought into Putin's grandiose national pride through sport project.

The Big Two international events for Russia are of course the Winter Olympics and Paralympics, which took place in Sochi earlier this year, and the 2018 FIFA World Cup.

But the list of major international championships earmarked for the country is formidably extensive.

This year, as well as Sochi 2014, there were World Championships in judo and fencing.

Oh and a debut Russian Formula One grand prix is to be held next month, also in Sochi.

Next year will bring the World Aquatics Championships to Kazan and (again) the World Fencing Championships, this time to Moscow, while the SportAccord convention, one of the sporting world's most important annual get-togethers, is due to be held in Russia for the second time in three years.

In 2016, it is the turn of ice-hockey and that sport's World Championship.

There has also been a World Athletics Championships along the way, in the capital Moscow in 2013.

Russian leader Vladimir Putin, pictured here with International Olympic Committee President Thomas Bach, was closely associated with the success of Sochi 2014
©AFP/Getty Images

As I write this, a ceasefire in Eastern Ukraine appears to have taken some of the immediate sting out of the diplomatic situation.

Yet there remains a sense that things could start sliding downhill again with little warning.

And if that happens, leading to a further, prolonged deterioration in relations between Russia and the West, it would be hard not to conclude that the sports sector is exposed to a worrying degree.

Yes, if push came to shove, alternative hosts could no doubt step into the breach for most or all of these events.

But such late rearrangements would have cost implications, as would pressing ahead with the events in Russia under circumstances inducing many leading athletes, and perhaps other stakeholders, to stay away.

Aspirations of expanding the Russian market for western sporting goods, moreover, would probably have to be put on ice.

Already, the sportswear group Adidas has decided to "significantly reduce its store opening plan in the market for 2014 and 2015, and to further increase the number of store closures", although it remains "very encouraged by increasing brand momentum".

Sportswear giants Adidas have announced plans to scale back their presence in Russia since the start of the Ukraine crisis ©AFP/Getty Images

Prudence, surely, would now dictate that sports property owners think very carefully before bestowing more future sports events on Russia. Not that they are as spoilt for choice, many of them, as they have sometimes been in the past.

Citizens in several comparatively cuddly and affluent western democracies are manifesting considerable scepticism about the local benefits of hosting big sporting events - especially when irritants such as road works and higher taxes are sometimes all too apparent.

And the street demonstrations in Brazil ahead of this summer's ultimately very successful World Cup were so widely reported that they may give pause for thought to other ambitious countries contemplating hosting sports events as a means of fostering national development.

Such reactions have been among factors propelling events to places such as China, the Gulf states and Russia, where well-resourced, efficient organisation is assured and the general public is less inclined to make a fuss.

The United States, at least, seems increasingly determined to win the right to host the Summer Olympics for the first time since 1996.

The appetite for staging other events that often accompanies such ambitions may be fortuitously-timed from the sports sector's point of view.

Having lost out to Qatar in the controversial race for the 2022 World Cup, the US looks well-placed to host that mega-event for a second time in the not too distant future as well.

One possible Russian project whose prospects have probably been dented by current tensions between Russia and the West is a St Petersburg bid for the 2024 Olympics and Paralympics.

With bids needing to be launched next year, the diplomatic situation would have to thaw markedly for such a venture to stand any chance of success.

And yet you could say that a St Petersburg Olympics - not in 2024, but between, say, 2028 and 2036 - would be the logical culmination of Putin's nation-building international sports policy.

Any hopes St Petersburg had of bidding for the 2024 Olympics and Paralympics has probably been ended by recent political events but the Russian city remains a contender in the future ©AFP/Getty Images

Clamping my rose-tinted spectacles firmly to my head, therefore, it could be argued that sport provides a motive for Putin, who can act more nimbly than the West with its cumbersome international policy-making apparatus, not to allow relations with Washington and Brussels to deteriorate beyond repair.

It would be almost unthinkable, even allowing for the sprinkling of Putin allies who hold prominent positions in the world of international sport, for St Petersburg to win the Games in the event of a flat-out new cold war.

Yet Putin knows how easily he has charmed international sports decision-makers in the past - both in Guatemala, where his English speech in 2007 did much to win the day for Sochi, and three years later in Zurich, where his decision to stay aloof from the futile, last-gasp World Cup lobbying appeared in retrospect both well-judged and dignified.

It would not take much, I suspect, for this artful, intimidating and powerful man to have the grandees of international sport once again feeding out of his hand.

For the time being, though, I would think that the list of prestigious international sports events that are heading for Russia will stop getting longer.

Anyone who has ever attended a football match will recognise one of the deepest instincts of the spectator - the urge to shout out "handball!"

It's unnecessary. That's what the referee and assistants are there for. And if they don't perceive such an offence, then shouting out "handball" is irrelevant. But that urge to shout - it's as irresistible as a doctor's rubber hammer to a bent knee.

We engage at a number of levels with any sporting spectacle - we judge, we evaluate, and sometimes we react, even if we would be hard pushed to explain why.

Within the space of the last seven days, two sporting encounters have provoked instinctive reactions among some of those who have witnessed them, raising suspicions about their validity.

Important note here - just because suspicions are raised, it doesn't mean they have foundation; in just the same way, not every instinctive cry of "handball!" is correct.

The manner in which Britain's Mo Farah won Sunday's 34th running of the Great North Run generated a fair amount of questioning on Twitter. Kenyan Mike Kigen - a training partner of Farah's and a fellow member of the PACE management group - appeared to have a chance of breaking away from the world and Olympic 5000/10,000 metres champion but was eventually beaten by a sprint over the final 200m, albeit that he recovered ground to record the same winning time of one hour exactly.

Mo Farah finishes narrowly ahead of training partner Mike Kigen at Sunday's Great North Run - a result which caused some speculation ©Getty Images

Farah was obliged to address the question in his post-race interview. He said he and Kigen had planned to "work together" to see off all other opposition - which included Uganda's world and Olympic marathon champion Stephen Kiprotich - adding:

"Mike is a great athlete and in great shape. He pushed the pace on and kept pushing and pushing. There were a couple of times I was struggling but I managed to get back to him. I knew if it came down to the finish I could use my sprint finish, but today he actually did test me and I believe he could have run a lot faster if he had people to go with.

"If it wasn't for how high he thinks of me, he could have really had a go at one point."

On July 8, Thomas Bach rounded off the second day of an International Olympic Committee (IOC) Executive Board meeting by watching in the foyer of Lausanne's Palace hotel as his native Germany trounced hosts Brazil 7-1 in a FIFA World Cup semi-final.

Since his election as IOC President in Buenos Aires a year ago, on 10 September 2013, Bach and his team have often looked as slick and well-organised as that world champion German side; but - one year into a potentially 12-year reign - it is much too soon to judge whether they will accomplish their aims so completely.

That is not to say, stretching the analogy to breaking-point, that the 60-year-old athlete-turned-administrator has not nodded in the odd early goal.

Chief among these, by my estimation, is the $7.65 billion (£4.51 billion/€5.49 billion) deal, unveiled last May, selling United States broadcasting rights to the Olympic Games between 2021 and 2032 across all media platforms to NBCUniversal (NBCU).

Yes, some might argue - given how profoundly the media world will change over the next two decades, and that the sums involved average out, by my calculation, to around a 16 percent increase per four-year Olympic cycle over the last deal - that Bach may turn out to have underplayed his hand and would have done better not to commit so far into the future.

A more pragmatic appraisal in my view is to acknowledge that a solid financial base has been put in place - equivalent to perhaps 20 per cent of the revenue that the Movement would realistically want to have at its disposal over the deal's 12-year span.

This may give the IOC the security to negotiate more aggressively with other media partners, should it deem individual markets strong enough.

It should be remembered too that broadcasting revenues, though resilient, will show far slower growth in the 2013-2016 quadrennium than the explosive near 50 percent advance the Movement benefited from in 2009-2012.

In such circumstances, the latest NBCU deal also sends out a strong message to other potential commercial partners about the long-term desirability of the Olympic property.

In a second important point, I think the NBCU deal indicates the limits of the collegial management style the IOC President has appeared to set so much store by during his first months in office.

When Bach, fresh from addressing the United Nations, first broached the idea of what I think may fairly be called the IOC's deal of the century (so far), last November at a New York dinner with NBCU executives, he was accompanied by just two senior IOC officials.

"We kept it among the three of us," he later confided.

Thomas Bach has reinjected momentum into the Olympic Movement since replacing Jacques Rogge as IOC President exactly a year ago ©Getty Images

Another big achievement of the first 12 months of the Bach era has been to reinject momentum into a Movement that had been rather drifting along in the final phase of Jacques Rogge's Presidency.

Rogge's great accomplishment was to restore the IOC's reputation for integrity.

This was no small thing: the financial bonanza which the unfailingly serious Belgian presided over, as the world's most powerful political leaders, and business and television executives, fought for a piece of the Olympic action, would probably have been a lot less lucrative without that first step.

When it came to the vision thing, though, the Rogge regime inspired far less confidence, with the jury, for me, still out on whether his baby, the Youth Olympic Games, is an effective - and cost-effective - way of enticing young people to engage with the Movement.

With the benefit of hindsight, his second term was perhaps a mistake - and the sheer number of balls Bach has thrown up into the air since his election is perhaps a reflection of that.

One other thing I would say, is that Bach's instincts regarding what the late British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan once alluded to as "events, dear boy, events" have so far been sound.

Thomas Bach has faced some controversies in his first year, particularly the Winter Olympics in Sochi, an event closely associated with Russian President Vladimir Putin
©AFP/Getty Images

He struck the right tone over the various controversies relating to the fact that this year's Winter Olympics were staged in Vladimir Putin's Russia, and seems in recent months to have damped down very considerable fears over the rate of progress in preparations for Rio 2016.

He has presided over a marked improvement in relations between the IOC and the United States, while appearing to do what he can to encourage other potential bidders for the 2024 Summer Games that the US seems to covet.

I think the high priority he appears to be giving to the establishment of an Olympic TV channel is also sensible.

For the rest - most notably the consequences of his Olympic Agenda 2020 reform process - it is just too early to say.

Encouragingly, what might have been a dauntingly complex process has so far been choreographed adroitly yet inclusively.

Much the most taxing period, however, will be the next three months, as key proposals are distilled then put up for approval by IOC members.

Will sensible improvements in areas such as the bidding process and the choice of sporting programme be made?

It will be fascinating to see: given his sure-footed start, you wouldn't bet against Bach navigating a path through the maze; but so many vested interests are in play that enacting a cohesive and game-changing set of reforms will not be easy.

I can't help thinking it is a pity that this bridge wasn't crossed a few years ago, while the Olympic horizon was blissfully trouble-free.

One reason for saying this is that I sense that the sheer jam-packed crowdedness of Bach's first year programme has contributed to what has seemed to me a rather flat-footed response to the lack of love for the Olympics - for the idea of hosting them at any rate - being displayed in a number of affluent West European cities, in particular oil-rich Oslo.

In my discussions on the subject, Olympic leaders have seemed surprised and genuinely puzzled by the depth and extent of antipathy and scepticism that has set in.

Olympic Agenda 2020 should enable them to formulate a general response to the problem, but may have hampered the prompt concoction of a specific one.

Yes, more flexibility in bidding criteria and the IOC's demands may help, but I fear an effective response may have to delve deeper than that, perhaps embracing reforms to the marketing restrictions that have helped secure the Movement's finances, but contribute to local people and businesses feeling estranged from 'their' events.

Thomas Bach has taken encouraging steps to re-engage the Olympic Movement with the world's youth ©Nanjing 2014

There are other big issues too which, while a mere sports body has no obligation to grapple with, you would like to think - given that Bach has met, we are told, 81 heads of state and government already - that the IOC would want to make some sort of contribution to tackling.

Could the Movement do more to prevent the radicalisation of young Muslims?

That, admittedly, is a hugely tall order, but sport ought, you feel, to be part of the solution to such pressing world problems if it is to merit the value its leaders clearly feel it deserves.

Closer to home, has the Movement got the balance right between allowing rich and powerful nations to wallow in conspicuous Olympic, and Paralympic, success and helping athletes from weak, impoverished countries overcome odds that inevitably are stacked against them?

Could it do more to combat obesity?

One could go on.

So, as excellent a start as Bach has made - and I wouldn't be surprised if some in Lausanne have been a little taken aback at the workload - there is still plenty more to do, or at least, that could be done.

Yes, the football-loving former fencer has scored early points, but four years in - halfway through his initial term - will be the time to pass meaningful judgement.

David Owen worked for 20 years for the Financial Times in the United States, Canada, France and the UK. He ended his FT career as sports editor after the 2006 World Cup and is now freelancing, including covering the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the 2010 World Cup and London 2012. Owen's Twitter feed can be accessed here.

Usually when you learn that sport's long-in-the-tooth heads of state are declining to abdicate gracefully it's a head-in-the-hands groaning situation. Sepp Blatter is a case in point. He steadfastly refuses to hang up his blazer, clinging on to power at his FIFA fiefdom with much of the football world silently mouthing: "For God's sake go! Give someone else a chance."

But no. The Swiss septuagenarian has declared that he will stand for a fifth term of office, which surely means more of the same suaveness and subterfuge for another four years.

So it is with many other sports leaders, who, unlike United States or International Olympic Committee (IOC) Presidents do not have a fixed term in which they must do their job and bow out for better or worse. Instead the old buffers outstay their welcome, frustrating those with the youth, ambition and talent to impose fresh ideas.

Yet there can be the odd exception. And one of them I believe, Dr CK Wu, who, as insidethegames has revealed, is to stand for a third term as President of the International Boxing Association (AIBA).

Now it may surprise you to hear that this is something I heartily applaud. For one good reason. There is no-one better-equipped to continue the reformist work of the 67-year-old Taiwanese architect who has  successfully spruced up a sport which not so long ago was in danger of being ko'd from the Games programme because of a prevailing undercurrent of corruption and sleaze.

AIBA President CK Wu is best equipped to press on with reforming the organisation ©AFP/Getty Images



Yes, I have disagreed vehemently here with Dr Wu on occasions, most notably over his frankly unattainable desire to become the pooh-bah of boxing, bringing even the professional side of the sport into his domain.

I said it could never happen and I believe Dr Wu privately now realises that too. It remains an impossible dream

Instead he now seems wisely to be concentrating on continuing to modernise and "professionalise" what used to be among the most intransigently archaic of sports, the last in the Olympic Movement to actually remove the word "amateur" as a prefix.

Since taking over in 2006 from Pakistan's Anwar Chowdhry, subsequently barred for life by AIBA, he has done an outstanding job, culminating in the formation of two major entities, the international city-franchised, World Series Boxing and soon-to-be launched AIBA Pro Boxing, tournaments in which boxers fight as professionals (i.e. they get paid purse money) while being allowed to retain eligibility to take part in the Olympics.

There is no doubt that Dr Wu once envisaged that this might be a body blow to the real world of professional boxing by encouraging a move under one umbrella. But this has not proved remotely possible.

There is no way AIBA can logically embrace the likes of mega-promoters like Don King, Biob Arum, Frank Warren and Eddie Hearn or fighters including Floyd Mayweather Jnr or Wladimir Klitschko; nor is it feasible they would ever financially or administratively oversee huge promotions such as the record-busting return between Carl Froch and George Groves at Wembley, or have world class pros (e.g. Klitschko and Manny Pacquiao) fighting in an Olympic tournament against comparative novices.

That's pugilistic pie in the sky. Not only unfair but dangerously unhealthy.

Nor, despite the appointment of high-flyer David Gough (ex-IMG and Coca-Cola) as chief executive for its new global marketing company, the Boxing Marketing Arm, will AIBA be able to offer the sort of riches that lured away the two outstanding 2012 Olympic champions, British super-heavyweight Anthony Joshua and Ukraine's Vasyl Lomachenko, now world champion in only his third pro fight.

No, Dr Wu and his cornermen surely will concentrate on what they do best - re-invigorating and enhancing their own brand of the noble art as an attractive spectacle for fighters and fans alike.

The introduction of women's boxing to the Olympic Games is among CK Wu's greatest achievements ©AFP/Getty Images



Among the most welcome reforms already introduced under the aegis of Dr Wu is the admission of women into the Olympic and World Championship boxing ring, something for which I have long campaigned. The debut of female fighters was one of the high points of London 2012, with the effervescent Nicola Adams becoming the first Olympic gold medallist among the ladies who punch, and subsequently a national icon.

Dr Wu says AIBA's immediate task is to find a way of giving even greater equality to women by opening up more weight categories in which they can compete at Olympic level.

Currently there is provision only for flyweight, lightweight and middleweight. Dr Wu acknowledges that this will not be easy because there would be resistance to sacrificing some of the men's divisions to accommodate more women.

But as an IOC Executive Board member and former Presidential candidate, he can be influential in any re-examination of Olympic quotas across the board in all sports to keep numbers within IOC limits.

Another plus for Dr Wu is that under his aegis there hasn't been a doping scandal or a serious injury in Olympic boxing, now well and truly cemented in the Games programme.

Scandalously biased - and occasionally bent - judging is now far less likely to cause controversy under a rigorous supervisory system. And the adopted 10 points per round pro-style scoring, and refereeing that is far less fussy, with bouts no longer stopped at the first hint of a nosebleed, are welcome innovations.

The jury may still be out on the removal of headguards for men (keeping them for women suggests fear of a reaction to seeing feminine facial damage), but I am personally in favour as there is no conclusive evidence that they prevent eye or head injuries to any great extent.

It seems appropriate in view of his pioneering encouragement of women's boxing that Dr Wu should be up for re-election at the AIBA Congress being held alongside the women's world championships in Jeju Island, South Korea, on November 14.

In view of what the doctor has ordered to keep the sport in such good health, here's wishing him a happy return with the hope he continues to come out fighting.

Alan Hubbard is an award-winning sports columnist for The Independent on Sunday and a former sports editor of The Observer. He has covered a total of 16 Summer and Winter Games, 10 Commonwealth Games, several football World Cups and world title fights from Atlanta to Zaire.

From Katniss to Princess Merida, via Legolas, Robin Hood and Green Arrow, it is fair to say that few other sports boast as large a big screen presence as archery.

While the sport in a competitive sense is slightly different to its Hollywood portrayal, there is no doubt that reaching out to people familiar with bow and arrows from the movies is an obvious marketing strategy for the sport's governing body, World Archery.

There is a stereotype that Canadians are a thoroughly nice bunch of people. If Edmonton 2022's dreams are anything to go by, it is most likely true.

The team bidding to host the Commonwealth Games in eight years' time has a vision that each of the 71 nations that will compete at the event will take home at least one medal of any colour.

No expense was spared within the VIP section at Warsaw's Stadion Narodowy on Saturday night as the great and good of the world volleyball scene witnessed a hugely ambitious Opening Ceremony for the FIVB World Championships that was followed by a stirring 3-0 win for the host nation over Serbia, their most dangerous opponents in the opening group matches.

Security on the door was tight. At one point my bread and cheese selection came under heavy scrutiny. In retrospect I should never have taken it out of the room, but having done so I became stubbornly attached to it. Happily the blameless platter was allowed to pass. But you could understand the jitters - after all, there was the Polish President present.

Inside this enclave of privilege, heavily made-up young hostesses of alarming height and depressing thinness smiled and...well, that was the only thing I can remember them doing in fact. Huge vases of deep red flowers were lit at intervals by pools of golden light, thus echoing the predominant colours of marketing for the event, with red symbolising the passion Poland's people have for a sport which, in physical terms, resembles a sequence of unfeasibly prolonged conversations.

Polish fans enjoyed a massive spectacle of Opening Ceremony and home victory as the World Volleyball Championships got underway in Warsaw on Saturday night ©Getty Images

Within the main body of a stadium built initially to host Euro 2012 football matches, a 70,000 crowd (62,000 plus 8,000 guests/media, tickets sold out in May) was encouraged to participate at all relevant points by a smiling MC and his keyboard-playing mate up in the stands. For the VIPs, drifting over to the windows or the open doors to witness the ferment, champagne in hand, the whole spectacle was immensely diverting.

The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner is one of those great 1960s British films that tackle edgy social themes, in this case the life of a young petty thief who discovers a talent for running.

But lonely runners, and for that matter cyclists, may soon be a thing of the past, if a business called Strava continues to grow.

Strava, the Swedish word for "to strive", was founded five years ago by two former Harvard oarsmen, Mark Gainey and Michael Horvath.

Having set up one software company and taken it public, the pair found themselves as middle-aged family men with the sort of obligations that made team-sports impractical.

It was out of this situation that the idea for Strava arose; as Gareth Nettleton, the business's London-based director of international marketing, explained: "They saw software as a platform that would allow them to create some social competition, authentic camaraderie and in-depth training tools.

"In its simplest form, they imagined a 'virtual locker-room' where they could share workouts among their athlete friends and keep each other motivated along the way."

The idea has grown into a service that enables millions of potentially solitary recreational runners and cyclists around the world to interreact with each other.

Strava allows runners and cyclists around the world to connect with each other ©Strava



Peter Keen, the enormously successful former performance director of UK Sport who alerted me to Strava's existence, thinks it is "a game-changer.

"It's turning an individual activity into a social sport," he says.

According to Nettleton, Strava is easy to join, either by signing up free of charge on the Strava.com website, or by downloading a mobile app.

He continues: "When a member goes for a run or a ride, Strava will help them track their activity.

"They can do this by using the Strava app on their smart-phone, or they can run or ride with pretty much any other GPS device, such as a watch or bike computer, and upload to the Strava website afterwards.

"Once a member uploads, we analyse their data to show them where they ran or rode, how fast they went and how hard they were working.

"Additionally, we also allow our members to compare their times with other runners and cyclists who have run or ridden the same roads and trails previously.

"We call these Strava segments."

Keen, now director of sport advancement and strategy at Loughborough University in the English Midlands, says: "You can see a complete record of your day in the saddle and social interaction is built-in.

"People are, in effect, racing each other by recording their performance over a given section of road.

"You can tell you are, say, 10th out of 12,000.

"It's changing the nature of cycling."

The fastest athletes over individual segments are awarded "King of the Mountains" or "Course Record" accolades.

Gareth Nettleton, Strava's London-based director of international marketing, has said the business has changed the nature of cycling ©Gareth Nettleton/Twitter



"The competition is a real motivator," Nettleton says.

He also explains that Strava has a popular "Clubs" section, which he likens to "virtual clubhouses where announcements get made, group runs and rides get organised and important notices get posted.

"We have seen real-world clubs setting up their own Strava club as an extension of what they have already, as well as entirely virtual clubs springing up, where running and riding buddies can keep track of each other even if they are based on opposite sides of the globe," he says.

How does San Francisco-based Strava make money, given that no advertising was, as Nettleton puts it, "a founding principle"?

He says the business model is a subscription one: "We have Strava Premium, which costs $3.99 (£2.42/€3.03) per month or $39.99 (£24.30/€30.44) for an annual subscription".

This offers a "richer" Strava experience with additional features and functionality which allow more detailed analysis of performance.

The business also offers what Nettleton describes as a "fairly unique e-commerce platform and model.

"Every month, we run certain challenges on Strava and for those athletes who successfully complete a challenge, we make unique gear rewards available for them to purchase.

"This could be a one-off cycling jersey for instance that will only be available to those athletes who put in the hard work to complete the challenge."

Data on where people run and ride is being made available to transport departments and town planners ©Getty Images



Finally, anonymised data on where people run and ride is offered to transport departments and town planners through the Strava Metro service.

"In the UK, we have recently started working with Transport for London and Glasgow City Council," Nettleton says.

"It's the kind of information they can't get from anywhere else."

Could Strava branch out into other sports - triathlon seems the most obvious, since it caters for two of the three disciplines already?

For now, Nettleton tells me, it is concentrating on runners and cyclists primarily, though he acknowledges "serving triathletes is an obvious next step, and in fact we already allow members to upload their swims if they have a device that can track them".

For the foreseeable future, however, he says, the business's "energies will be spent on continually improving and enhancing the Strava experience for the members that we already have".

Someone once said that the internet meant the death of geography.

By applying that insight to sport, while enabling recreational athletes to feel part of a team without sacrificing the freedom to exercise when, where and how it suits them, Strava seems to have devised a service that is very well adapted to the realities of modern life.

David Owen worked for 20 years for the Financial Times in the United States, Canada, France and the UK. He ended his FT career as sports editor after the 2006 World Cup and is now freelancing, including covering the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the 2010 World Cup and London 2012. Owen's Twitter feed can be accessed here.

They have read the last rites over professional boxing as frequently as they have rung the last bell, but the battered old sport remains very much alive and punching. Big fights remain big box office, as the 80,000 Wembley sell-out for Carl Froch and George Groves in May testified.

So do big fighters, and the heavyweight scene - traditionally the barometer of the sport's health - is being given a booster injection with the rapid pro progress of the 2012 Olympic super-heavyweight champion Anthony Joshua, currently Britain's most prized fighter.

It is coming up for a year since Big Josh made his well-paid debut and with luck and his jack-hammer right hand the amiable young Londoner should help keep boxing out of the gravediggers' clutches for the next decade or so.

When he signed Joshua, promoter Eddie Hearn forecast he would be fighting for a title within a year.

And so he is. In what will be his ninth pro fight he faces Russian Denis Bakhtov for the WBC International belt on October 11 at London's O2, the venue where he made his pro debut exactly 12 months before to the day. It is a timely step up in class.

This title may be a bit of a bauble but Joshua sees it as a vital stepping stone to his ultimate ambition - the full-blown World Championship.

Anthony Joshua will fight Denis Bakhtov for the WBC International belt on October 11
©Getty Images



Bakhtov recently had an eight-round win over Konstantin Airich, the Kazhakstan-born German journeyman who Joshua first encounters in Manchester on Saturday week.

Busy Joshua should be well-prepared for both fights, having just returned from heavyweight champion Wladimir Klitschko's training camp in Austria as one of his sparring partners, an invaluable learning experience.

After his controversial victory over the Roman policeman Roberto Cammarelle in the Olympic final, a quick conquest of another Italian, Emanuele Leo, in his opening pro fight, saw the exploratory drilling into a potential goldmine.

Joshua had kept promoters worldwide on hold until finally sealing a deal with Matchroom's Hearn. Why did he prevaricate so long? He says: "I needed to take time to sort out the best package for me, and not just financially, because I had better offers."

Now Hearn says: "Within the next year we will have our sights on the British titles and the likes of Tyson Fury, Dereck Chisora and David Price. My personal view is that Joshua could actually beat anyone in Britain now. I can't tell you how excited I am about this guy."

Joshua claims to be unfazed by the constant reminder of how the pro career of his super-heavyweight predecessor Audley Harrison went embarrassingly belly-up. While he declines to diss Harrison, he says he will not follow the same intransigently self-obsessed route. Or end up in TV's Celebrity Big Brother house!

Unlike the Sydney 2000 Olympic champion, Joshua has not demanded to be the bill topper every time he fights. "Maybe that was Audley's mistake. I want to work my way up the ranks against decent opposition. I know I can become a great boxer, and ultimately a world champion. I just have to make sure I don't get lost in the hype."

Audley Harrison's journey into the professional boxing world after gold at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games will not be one followed by his countryman Anthony Joshua ©Getty Images



Harrison was nudging 30 when he turned pro. In boxing terms, Joshua, at 25, is still a baby, but at 6ft 6in and a trim 16½ stone he has vital commodities for greatness: good hand speed, a stunning punch, charm to match his Ali-like looks, a highly marketable personality and, importantly, a genuine feel for the game.

He can certainly dish it out, but the multi million-dollar question is whether he can take it on the chin. After seven fights we still don't know because he has taken out every opponent within two rounds with barely a glove laid on him.

A good whack on the whiskers has put paid to many a heavyweight hopeful's dream. Ask David Price.

But Joshua can certainly get out of the way if he needs to. The British-born son of Nigerian parents – his full name is Anthony Oluwafemi Olaseni Joshua – he was a talented footballer as a kid  and can still run 11 seconds for the 100m, a fleet-footedness which helps make him special. Hearn says he has constant trouble finding him opponents, "There are squeaky bums whenever we mention Josh's name," he says.

With youthful gremlins out of the way - he did community service for a minor drugs offence (unfortunately one which may cause problems should he ever be required to fight in the United States where they are distinctly touchy about such things) - Joshua says helping out the homeless in his former home town of Watford mentally prepares him for battles in life and the ring.

"I used to drink," he admits. "I didn't like reading, but I discovered the benefits of it. I read that Floyd Mayweather never drinks - and he is the blueprint for boxing.

"The party invitations piled up after I won my gold medal at the Games but now boxing comes first. I empowered myself by educating myself.

"I read a book called Think and Grow Rich - and started thinking about how Lennox Lewis applied his mind to boxing. I started talking with him regularly and he mentioned chess, how chess relates to the ring. In particular, how to counterattack and think two steps ahead of your opponent.

"I got a lady friend to teach me and now I think I'm ready to give him a game!"

The greatest of them all, Muhammad Ali, is Anthony Joshua's idol ©Getty Images



Lewis may be his mentor, but his idol is Muhammad Ali. When Hearn signed him on a three-year deal, Joshua's first request was: "Can you arrange for me to meet Ali? Just to be in his presence, in the same room, to touch him, would be an honour. He could give me something, a positive energy that no one else could."

No British Olympic champion - at any weight - has yet progressed to a world title. Lewis wore a Canadian vest when he won his gold in Seoul in 1988.

It is interesting to compare how the Olympic gold medallists who went on to become the universally recognised world heavyweight champions had fared at the same one-year stage of their respective pro careers. All, like Joshua, were unbeaten.

Floyd Patterson, 1952 middleweight champion in Helsinki, had eight pro fights, winning all but two by ko; Muhammad Ali, 1960 light-heavyweight champion in Rome, nine fights, winning six by ko; Joe Frazier, 1964 heavyweight champion in Tokyo, 11 fights, all by ko; George Foreman, 1972 heavyweight champion, Mexico City, 16 fights, all by ko; Lennox Lewis, 1988 super-heavyweight champion, Seoul, 12 fights, 11 by ko, one by disqualification; Wladimir Klitschko, 1996 super-heavyweight champion, Atlanta, 13 fights, all by ko.

But the most remarkable first 12 months of all was delivered by Leon Spinks, the gap-toothed Olympic light-heavyweight champion from Montreal 1976 who was world heavyweight champion in only his eighth pro fight, sensationally outpointing Muhammad Ali on split decision in February 1978 in Las Vegas. He remains the only man to have actually taken the title from Ali, though he lost it back to him in their return in New Orleans seven months later.

So Joshua ring-walks in elite company. The young man who was once drifting into a life of petty crime is now a charming example of the change and hope that sport can deliver.

"I feel blessed to be here," he says. "That discipline I got from boxing, it played like a fatherly role, you learn how to say no.

"Instead of someone having to tell you don't do this, don't do that, boxing gives you the self-discipline to make the right decisions. It changes the way you think."

He smilingly informs us that even though his favourite reading material may be Napoleon Hill's Think and Grow Rich, Josh insists it really isn't all about dosh. "Money helps, but doesn't motivate me. Never has. I'm rich in spirit and in my heart. As long as I feel a million dollars, that's what matters."

Alan Hubbard is an award-winning sports columnist for The Independent on Sunday and a former sports editor of The Observer. He has covered a total of 16 Summer and Winter Games, 10 Commonwealth Games, several football World Cups and world title fights from Atlanta to Zaire.

A new poll introduced on insidethegames last week - "Following the Summer Youth Olympic Games in Nanjing, do you think the event should continue beyond Buenos Aires 2018?" - brought home a rather irritating truth for me.

For despite spending two weeks immersed in the world of Nanjing 2014, and plenty more preparing for it beforehand, I still don't feel confident in predicting whether or not they will continue, and neither do I have a strong personal opinion to offer on the subject.

Certainly, the impression we got in Nanjing, drummed into us over and over again, was that the Youth Olympics are fantastic, a great idea fulfilling its objectives and with a rich and vibrant future, with the positive reactions of athletes and local people alike evidence for this.

So FIFA President Sepp Blatter is a step nearer securing a fifth term as boss of world football, following this week's announcement by his UEFA counterpart Michel Platini, probably his most credible potential challenger, that he would not stand against him in next year's election.

That means that world football's governing body may be a step nearer possibly losing its direct, active representation in world sport's most powerful club - the International Olympic Committee (IOC).

At present, three members of FIFA's ruling Executive Committee are also IOC members: Blatter himself, Issa Hayatou, Cameroonian President of the African Football Confederation (CAF), and Lydia Nsekera of Burundi, FIFA's first elected woman executive committee member.

As things stand, however, all three could lose their places in one body or the other over the next three years.

Blatter has been an IOC member since 1999, the year after he became FIFA President.

Because his membership pre-dates 11 December 1999, Blatter is able to remain in the IOC until the end of the calendar year in which his 80th birthday falls.

That puts his Olympic retirement date, under the current charter, at 31 December 2016 - well before the end of his fifth FIFA term, should he indeed secure it.

Sepp Blatter's membership of the International Olympic Committee, now led by Thomas Bach, is due to expire at the end of 2016 ©AFP/Getty Images

By coincidence, Hayatou's last day as an IOC member may also be 31 December 2016.

Though he is 10 years Blatter's junior, the West African joined the club only in 2001, meaning that his retirement is fixed for the end of the year in which he reaches the age of 70.

Nsekera's problem, by contrast, lies not with the IOC: she is a stripling of 47, leaving her free, I think, to retain her place until 2037 - the year after Blatter is due to celebrate his 100th birthday.

But she was ousted last year after nine years as President of the Burundi Football Federation.

So her issue, I suspect, may be extending her time on FIFA's Executive Committee beyond her current mandate which runs until 2017.

Could FIFA really go from three active IOC members to zero in such a short time-frame?
It could (though Blatter and Hayatou would very likely be granted Honorary IOC member status); but with football such a powerful force in world sport and an important ingredient in the Summer Olympics in terms of star quality, ticket sales and spreading the event beyond the host-city, it probably won't.

I can think of three ways in which the approaching void might be prevented - four if you allow what seems the increasingly remote possibility of Blatter being defeated in next year's FIFA Presidential election by a younger man (or woman) eligible to join the IOC without breaching its age limits.

Lydia Nsekera, a member of FIFA's Executive Committee, has lost her position as head of the Burundi Football Association ©AFP/Getty Images

a) The IOC's rules on this might be changed under IOC President Thomas Bach's reformist Olympic Agenda 2020 initiative.

Most simply, the places of those IOC members voted into the club by virtue of holding a senior position on an international sport federation (IF) could be said to extend for the duration of their IF posting, irrespective of age.

With the IOC gearing up for changes, such an apparently modest reform is perhaps achievable, even if it is hard to see how it squares with the Movement's youth agenda.

Blatter actually told his fellow IOC members earlier this year that imposing an age limit could be tantamount to an act of discrimination.

"The age limit is a problem which we also considered during the reform at FIFA," Blatter said.

"We concluded that imposing an age limit is an act of discrimination...

"It is not normal to impose an age limit on individuals.

"The only justified age limit that exists at the civil level is when a person comes of age, but in sports terms age limit as far as I understand it is discriminatory."

b) Nsekera might manage to retain her place on FIFA's Executive Committee beyond 2017, leaving her perfectly placed to act as sole direct, active intermediary between the respective inner sanctums of the world's two most powerful sports bodies.c) The name of another FIFA Executive Committee member could be put forward with a view to him (or her) being accepted into the IOC at the 2017 Session.

This, in many ways, is the most intriguing possibility, since it might well be interpreted as Blatter, in effect, nominating his successor at the head of world football.

Jeffrey Webb, from the Cayman Islands, is widely touted as a possible successor to FIFA President Sepp Blatter ©AFP/Getty Images

Looking at today's FIFA vice-presidents, you would imagine it would come down to a straight choice between Platini and Jeffrey Webb of the Cayman Islands and CONCACAF, the Confederation for North and Central America and the Caribbean - although I fancy that Shaikh Salman Bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa, President of the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) might also enter the picture.