From the Sidelines: Sleeveless in soccer and other fashions By Alaa Abdel-Ghani I think it's great that FIFA decided against penalising Cameroon the six points that had seriously dented its chances of going to the 2006 World Cup. Cameroon, which has made an African record five World Cup appearances, is truly the continent's best country in football ever. Almost killing any chance it had of another World Cup would not have been good for football. It might have been good for Egypt, seeing that Cameroon is with us in the same qualifying group. But fair is fair. To recap, FIFA had deducted six points from Cameroon's World Cup qualifying matches for its use of one-piece kits at the Nations Cup finals in Tunisia in January. FIFA rules only permit the use of a separate jersey and shorts. It also fined the team $154,000. Earlier this month, Issa Hayatou, president of the African football federation and from Cameroon needless to say, rallied support from the 52 African members of FIFA to overturn the ban which indeed was lifted at FIFA's centennial congress, although the fine remained. FIFA boss Joseph Blatter called the decision "an act of grace". But it could also have been described as one of survival, this after FIFA felt it may be taken to court by sportswear manufacturers Puma. Puma, the people who created Cameroon's one-piece suit, is seeking compensation for lost revenue and has reportedly put its case to a court in Nuremberg. An official from Puma insisted that his organisation had obtained clearance from FIFA deputy general secretary Jerome Champagne before the kit was manufactured. "I personally took drawings of the kit to Jerome Champagne in Zurich last September," Puma representative Horst Widmann said. "He told me that he thought that it was a nice idea and that the designs were within the rules. "He also advised me to take the designs to CAF (the Confederation of African Football), which I did in early December." FIFA might deny Puma's claims but it cannot deny applying double standards: what it has banned Cameroon from wearing, it wants to see on women. Earlier this year, Blatter urged female footballers to wear skimpier kits to increase the popularity of the women's game. "Let the women play in more feminine clothes like they do in volleyball," said the FIFA chief. "They could, for example, have tighter shorts." Blatter added: "Female players are pretty, if you excuse me for saying so, and they already have some different rules to men -- such as playing with a lighter ball. That decision was taken to create a more female aesthetic, so why not do it in fashion?" Women don't use a lighter ball, and as for hotpants, they are not half as sexy on men as they are on women. Or so Blatter says in so many words. Ten years ago women did play in tighter shorts but few people -- at least those I don't know -- paid much attention. So surely it's about skill and tactical ability first and how people look second. But attire in sports is important. All athletes in all sports like to look sharp when playing, especially when it's in front of thousands in person and millions on TV. Sportswear is also changing all the time. There is not a single sport which has not had at least one revolution in wardrobe. Just think tennis of the all-white and today's leopard skin of Serena Williams. Or the trunks of Johnny Weismuller and the skintight rubber that makes Ian Thorpe swim a fraction faster. Why should football be different? The France-Brazil match last month celebrating FIFA's 100 years brought back knee-length baggy pants which metamorphosed into the mini-short era of the 1970s, to the now middle of the road size. And why should Cameroon be the exception? In the 2002 World Cup they looked like basketball players, which upset FIFA as well. But what's wrong with being sleeveless in soccer or play in one-piece suits? Must the shorts and the shirts be connected? Shouldn't FIFA's consistent calls for new ideas to make football more attractive include changing the traditional jersey, short and sock? Obviously, FIFA disagrees. It did not want to alter clothing and its thinking nor did it accept the argument of the Cameroon Football Federation and Puma that it was impossible for the players to change their one-piece kit on such short notice. But at least FIFA had enough courage to backtrack on the Cameroon penalty. Even the Indomitable Lions could never have been able to make up six points in just 10 qualifying games. Now it's back on an equal footing with the rest of the group which includes Sudan, Ivory Coast, Libya and Benin. Egypt has already lost out on hosting the 2010 World Cup and now that Cameroon is back in the fray, it might not make it to the 2006 World Cup. But I'd rather see Cameroon have an equal shot at the cup than start from behind because of a disagreement on taste in clothes. And I'd rather see Egypt earn a place in the championship instead of taking the easy way in.
