WHATEVER else one may think of Didier Des-champs, he’s got guts. Guts to make his own decision, to not be cowed, to choose his path and live with the consequences. It ought to be a given for people who are put in charge of others, but often it is not.

Ahead of the tournament, he left out Karim Benzema from the French squad, ostensibly for his role in the now infamous “sex tape” blackmail of another France player, Mathieu Valbuena. That led to accusations of racism against North Africans (which, frankly, is absurd directed at a guy who was Zinedine Zidane’s sidekick at the peak of his career), as well as some stinging words from Eric Cantona. Still, he pressed on, even if it meant choosing between Olivier Giroud and Andre-Pierre Gignac to be his centre-forward.

Friday night, in the opening game of Euro 2016, he again chopped his own path through the weeds. He picked Dimitri Payet ahead of Anthony Martial in a front three against Romania. Not that anyone would question Payet after the season he had with West Ham, but the hype machine was squarely in Martial’s camp.

And when the going got tough for Les Bleus, when the unfancied Romanians shocked Deschamps with their aggressive midfield press – a deviation from the expected script of deep defending and hitting on the counter – he again showed no fear with his substitutions. The two men to make way for more forwards were Antoine Griezmann and Paul Pogba. They may or may not be France’s two most gifted players (they probably are) but they are certainly, and by some margin, the two most expensive.

He spoke calmly about them after the game, patiently explaining every decision. Payet was picked over Martial because “he was more useful against a tightly packed defence”. Griezmann came off because he had become “inconsistent” after a bright start. As for Pogba, “he can do more, much, much more”.

Deschamps was, obviously, vindicated because France won, 2-1. But he did not know that at the time. For all he knew the game was going to end in a disappointing draw and he was going to get crucified for criticising two of his best players and leaving another on the bench.

That takes personality and the courage of your own convictions. It’s not the only quality to being a good manager of course – and, perhaps, Deschamps can improve in other areas – but it’s an important one. If he fails, the mistakes will be his and his alone. That has to be rather liberating for a manager.

PLENTY has been made about the settlement reached between Chelsea and their former medic, Eva Carneiro, and the fact that while the club apologised “unreservedly” for the distress caused to her, there was no similar statement from their manager at the time, Jose Mourinho. All we got was a line saying how the Special One “thanked her” for the work and “wished her a successful career”.

Carneiro had, of course, taken Mourinho and the club before an employment tribunal following her apparent demotion after a spat with the then Chelsea manager on the first day of last season. The fact the two parties have settled probably means they are bound by a confidentiality agreement and we’ll likely never know what exactly happened. All we can say for certain is that Carneiro chose not to take matters further, presumably because Chelsea satisfied certain conditions, including the apology and, probably, financial compensation; she had turned down a £1.2 million offer earlier.

The fact Mourinho did not apologise is irrelevant. From a legal perspective, what mattered most to Carneiro was the acknowledgement from her former employer that she acted in the correct and professional manner. And from an ethical perspective, Mourinho’s apology, if it came, would only be meaningful if it was heartfelt. If he’s not really sorry – perhaps because he doesn’t feel he did anything wrong – making him go through the motions is simply puerile.

THE fact North and South America exist as two separate confederations has long been a millstone around the neck of both. North America, technically Concacaf, groups perennial World Cup qualifiers like Mexico and the United States, countries with huge populations and, increasingly in the case of the latter, legitimate football powers, together with tiny Caribbean islands. It’s hard to develop when most of your games are either friendlies or one-sided affairs against nations who are far inferior to you.

South America, or Conmebol, on the other hand is hugely competitive but limited to just 10 nations. As a result, even staging a tournament like the Copa America means inviting two other countries to make up the numbers.

A merger has long been talked about and many hoped this summer’s special Copa America, staged in the United States to celebrate the centenary of a competition that began back in 1916, could sow the seeds of a “Super- confederation of the Americas”. Having North and South together would mean the former would regularly face quality opponents and the latter would have access to the massive TV markets (and sponsor interests) in the USA and Mexico.

The competition is nearing the end of the group stages and reaction has been lukewarm. TV ratings have been OK, the level of play has been inconsistent but, most of all, the anticipated crowds have failed to materialise. Just 28,000 showed up to watch Brazil take on Haiti in Orlando; 23,000 (barely a third of capacity) made it to Philadelphia for Uruguay and Venezuela. And just 11,000 went to the University of Phoenix stadium in Arizona when Ecuador took on Peru.

Is the inference that while appetite for the club game is healthy in the US, the same can’t be said for the national side? Or, more likely, is this just a really badly organised competition, one that, among other things, has already seen one stadium play the wrong anthem and another interrupt the pre-game anthem with a song by the hip hop artist Pitbull?