Blatter the devil they know

"One hundred and thirty three countries showed their faith in me as the right man to continue leading football," the controversial Fifa president said after being re-elected for a fifth term in a post he has already held for 26 years. "I thank them and I take this responsibility."

And there is no arguing with the ballot box. Nearly two-thirds of the world's football association want this man at the helm, no matter how many indictments rain down from the US Department of Justice, how many whistleblowers decry corruption and how many Sunday Times investigations are published.

Remember the old line about democracy being a flawed system but also one that ensures that the majority get the leaders they deserve?

Well, that might apply if the 209 voters actually represented their constituents: football fans, players and clubs. But they don't, of course. And not just the ones who are expressions of totalitarian states or tinpot dictators, but also ones closer to home. In the best-case scenario you get to lead an FA by being a politically shrewd football administrator who works his way up the food chain.

What Friday's elections tell us is that the majority of the world's footballing nations are generally happy with the status quo. And it's not because they are necessarily "unsophisticated" (as Mark Palios, a former FA chief, said on Wednesday) or don't understand the seriousness of corruption, but simply because a Blatter regime serves their interests.

Fifa redistribute large amounts of money to member FAs, many of whom could not survive without them. While it doesn't necessarily mean this system would change with somebody else at the helm - Prince Ali bin Al Hussein, Blatter's challenger, act had a plan to increase development funds - it's a simple case of the "devil you know".

Kazi Salahuddin, head of the Bangladesh FA, put it succinctly hours before the vote. "I'll be supporting Blatter," he said. "I know Blatter. I don't know the other guy."

Never mind the fact that the "other guy" was from his own confederation. Blatter, to many nations in the developing world, is the guy who broke Europe's stranglehold on the global game. Before him, you had Fifa presidents - such as Stanley Rous as recently as the early 1970s - who opposed the sporting world's boycott of apartheid-era South Africa. When the bar is set that low, it's not difficult to unspool a colonialist, us v them narrative that resonates in the developing world and Blatter did it extremely well.

He kept it going yesterday morning, hinting at vast conspiracies - "It 'smells' that the indictments which led to the arrests of Fifa officials came two days before the election" - and buying into the theory that all the talk of corruption is driven by sore losers: England with regard to the 2018 World Cup and the United States for 2022. Blatter is entitled to gloat a little and even to send some sinister warnings at his opponents: "I forgive, but I don't forget."

And the opposition? Seventy-three votes for Prince Ali is more than anyone would have expected a month ago. Yet, especially after the arrests and the Swiss authorities announcing that the bid process for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups was under investigation, that total underscores the fact that some nations weren't going to be swayed no matter what.

It also showed that while Uefa may be the wealthiest and most powerful confederation, it is not a voting bloc in the way others are. Russia, where Vladimir Putin fanned the notion that the latest developments were politically motivated, obviously backed Blatter as did a number of nations in their sphere of influence. You can understand that. Tougher to understand is why, say, France - Uefa president Michel Platini's own country - went the way of Blatter. Actually, it's not so hard to understand. Even as his own prime minister urged him to back Prince Ali, the head of the French FA, Noel Le Graet, persisted with his support of the incumbent.

Why? Because, as Le Graet explained, Blatter helped deliver the 2019 Women's World Cup to France and, in exchange, expected France's vote. Corruption, change, good governance, accountability, transparency, your own government's wishes ... nah. For Monsieur Le Graet, it makes more sense to engage in tit-for-tat politicking.

At least he had the courage to come out and say it. Others took the opportunity to make a statement and win media points. David Gill bordered on tragicomedy. He said he wouldn't take his seat on Fifa's executive committee if Blatter was re-elected and he was true to his word. Cue applause and plaudits from the English media. Such integrity! Such morals!

In fact, Gill was being disingenuous and nakedly pandering. He knew there was a very strong chance Blatter would be re-elected and yet he stood for the position. Why? Just so he could walk out?

Statements make sense if they are co-ordinated, if they show unity. If Gill had been joined in his walkout by other ExCo members opposed to Blatter, it might have made some sense. This way it looked as if everything was done for the benefit of the English media.

What next? If there is some comfort to be had here, it's that it won't necessarily be an easy ride for Blatter. Many of his long-time allies are either dead, decommissioned, disgraced or detained. The media scrutiny won't go away and only on Friday night the New York Times reported that US prosecutors expected more indictments.

Blatter knows he will need to cut deals and compromise. In fact, he was already at it yesterday morning. He announced that the distribution of World Cup places would be unchanged in 2018 and 2022 - an branch to Europe - and that the 2026 World Cup could be held in any confederation bar Asia (something to bring a smile to Concacaf).

So, less that 24 hours after his re-election, he was ready to negotiate. Ready to manoeuvre. Ready to rise above the mud bubbling all around him.

That's what makes him Blatter.