Arsenal Opinion: Football integrity and why FIFA’s response matters

It appears FIFA are giving CONCACAF the first opportunity to prove they can punish Senegal significantly enough after their response to conceding a stoppage time penalty was to walk off the pitch.

If you think this topic is not relevant to Arsenal, you are sadly mistaken. The action, or lack of it, concerns the whole of football, and it is the responsibility of the relevant governing body to safeguard the sport.

There needs to be the strongest deterrent possible because, as things stand, the next time a team disagrees with an official’s decision, they can simply return to the dressing room and make their opponents wait for as long as they wish. The sense of entitlement is astounding, with players seemingly believing they will only play if they agree with the decisions being made.

In my lifetime, I have watched Arsenal denied a goal in an FA Cup final because of a blatant handball, Wayne Rooney dive to help end the Invincibles’ unbeaten sequence, Eto’o score from an offside position in the 2006 Champions League final, and Frank Lampard’s effort against Germany in the 2010 World Cup clearly cross the line.

Yet if we are honest with ourselves, for decades all clubs have benefited from, or been victims of, controversial calls.

At no point did fans expect their manager to order the team to leave the pitch, because it has long been accepted that having someone in charge who is not flawless is part of the sport.

Yet we live in a society where conspiracy theorists are regularly warned by judges that what you think and what is true are not always the same.

Why walking off the pitch cannot be tolerated

That is why certain Gooners could learn from the aftermath of last Sunday, because a portion of our fanbase often suggests corruption, bias, and agendas exist within the game. This reflects modern culture, where people can share opinions around the world in seconds, regardless of credibility. It is now common for words to be used without understanding their meaning.

For example, I have peers who believe Senegal stood up to the system last weekend, that Africa felt Morocco had been favoured for the past month, and that Les Lions were simply defending themselves.

Why do you think El Hadji Diouf was seen talking to someone on the phone, after which the match was immediately ordered to resume?

Because it would have been an embarrassment for African football if the hosts were awarded the trophy by forfeit, the complete opposite of what AFCON was intended to represent.

Sanctions could have included a World Cup ban, and legally their federation would have had no argument, because, whisper it quietly, Senegal have yet to provide any evidence of corruption. Instead, they followed the growing trend of claiming conspiracy when things do not go their way.

That is not taking a stand, it is throwing a tantrum because you are not getting what you want.

If your child ran out of a room crying because they did not win pass the parcel, you would say they were sulking.