Vitriol continues to be poured upon all things FIFA in this part of the world just as Sepp Blatter will have anticipated and his response is being characterised as that of a well-fortified dictator who holds his ground, looks his accusers in the eye and effectively asks: "What are you going to do about it?"

However it could also be interpreted as him issuing the challenge: "Which of you has the right to question me?"

The greatest ally of the FIFA president is surely the posturing of British sports administrators and media with their sanctimonious accusations delivered with as much pomposity and arrogance as they accuse him of.

What happened last week was that FIFA effectively presented the information made available to them in a way that allowed them to turn to their principal accusers and tell them to put their own house in order before daring to question the prosperity FIFA has brought to previously neglected corners of the football world.

Doubtless there have been waverers within Blatter's core support of late, such has been the strength and consistency of the attacks launched at his leadership from Europe and the UK in particular.

However the nature of British coverage of this story in the last few days may only have reinforced his position among them, allowing him, as so often before, to say 'told you so' in terms of the readiness with which the accusations levelled at England's FA in the already infamous ethics report have been played down, while FIFA is once again lashed for presumed failings to the point were yesterday the governing body turned over the report to Swiss authorities and simultaneously lodged a criminal complaint against unidentified individuals over the awarding of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. FIFA, nevertheless, stood by its claim that any wrongdoing was not enough to jeopardise the winning Russian and Qatari bids.

As we examine how this has played out we must ask serious questions of Michael Garcia, the original author of that report, who has now claimed to have been misrepresented by the heavily abridged version that has been published.

Either he is legally unable to elaborate upon those claims or has chosen not to which means we cannot be 100 per cent sure about the extent to which he has cleared the Qataris and the Russians and that to which he has found the FA guilty.

The former seems more likely but if so we have to ask ourselves about the extent to which this New York attorney failed to do due diligence on the organisation he was working for before agreeing the terms under which he would exercise his investigation.

If he is as naive as this makes him appear then just how much could we trust his full findings should they ever find a way into the public domain?

Yet the moral indignation being expressed in these parts really is a bit much.

I turned on a radio phone-in yesterday to hear one caller spluttering with indignation about England not having been allowed to host a major international tournament for 48 years before belatedly remembering Euro '96 and converting that to not having hosted a World Cup.

A quick check of the FIFA world rankings shows that there are 208 member nations. Since 1966 there have been a dozen World Cups. Do the maths on when it should next be England's turn. By my reckoning Buck Rogers's great grandad might have a chance of putting in an appearance.

If people want to make a fuss they could perhaps cite the fact that Mexico and Germany have each hosted the tournament twice since. However among the vast majority of those member states be assured that complaints about England missing out only serve to help Blatter reinforce his position that it is the English whose attitude is the enemy of the rest of the world and that their motivation is utterly self-interested.

A few minutes later the presenter seemed to suggest that if Garcia's report had been treated in the same way in this country the authorities would have been forced by the outcry to reveal the full findings. Oh really? Do the expressions "30-year rule" or "super injunction" ring any bells ?

The real difficulty in all this is that we are talking about an organisation that can, on the grand scale, claim to have overseen something of a revolution in terms of football's global status in the past 20 years.

Blatter and his merry men have clearly benefited from the successes they have achieved, by whatever means and, just as with the bankers who engaged in corrupt practices but have yet to be forced to confront their misdeeds, they have so far been accused of all sorts of things but have been able to use the wealth they have generated to protect themselves from any sort of criminal investigation.

In real terms, for all the annoyance generated for those who do not want to play football in high temperatures, at inconvenient times of the year or, let's face it, anywhere that isn't in a European time zone, I wonder just how different FIFA's behaviour is to other global brands that find ways of avoiding tax or those exploiting third world labour to provide us with cheap clothing.

Meanwhile, in terms of the way sporting administrators behave, I have encountered countless cases that have impacted upon youngsters in this country over the past few years.

Most obviously there is the obscene way public funds are used to support a chosen few such as, for example, bobsleighers and lugers, as compared to the way money was withheld from team sports such as basketball, volleyball and water polo that can engage thousands, including many in the most deprived parts of the UK.

As to where the money goes, the professionalisation of sports administration in the UK in the past 20 years has been astonishing with executives who are in many, many cases delivering far worse results than their amateur-volunteer forebears, paying themselves eye-watering sums.

Most recently questions have been asked about how these posts are filled in the world of Scottish tennis, but it is by no means alone.

There are also bizarre inconsistencies in justification for allocation of money. Ice hockey, for example, has been apparently told it cannot be backed until it has a single national governing body, while a boxer can speak on air about how the sport's amateur governing body is seeking to find a publicly funded package that will stop him turning professional in a sport that seems to have countless governing bodies.

Nor is FIFA alone in seeking special entitlements when it comes to its freedom to operate and allocate public money in countries hosting its events.

In terms of justifying that practice by being able to point to great successes for the hosts, how about the inclusion of specific sports and disciplines in a major multi-sport competition simply because calculations were made that they could boost the host nation's medal count?

How much scrutiny has there really been of the 'legacy' we were promised would result from the London Olympics in particular. According to some reports sports participation has actually fallen since 2012.

Transparency of selection policies for many international teams has also been called into question, with recent complaints emanating from sports as disparate as skiing, lawn bowls, curling, triathlon and badminton.

These are areas in which British and Scottish politicians actually have the clout to call administrators to account given the reliance these events and sports have on the public purse, but they show little appetite to do so.

Far easier to shout insults from afar at Johnny Foreigner, it seems, but those doing so are on treacherous terrain in terms of what lies under the surface of that moral high ground they are seeking to occupy and, as he addresses the wider sporting world, doesn't Sepp Blatter know it?