RECENTLY, the distinguished journalist and Saints fan, Sir David Frost, passed away after leaving Southampton on a cruise ship.

His was a career notable for many things, but without doubt, the standout moment has to be his handling of Richard Nixon, in the former US President’s first major interviews in the years following the Watergate scandal.

On the obvious level it was a landmark moment for Frost’s dogged determination, which resulted in Nixon apologising for his actions to the American public.

On a wider basis, the Frost/Nixon interviews are credited with playing a vital role in ending the idea of reverence to our ‘betters’. The notion that politicians and those in power should be shown an unquestioning level of respect had been blown away.

However, those in power can still struggle with the idea of being questioned or challenged and football is no exception.

Currently, a couple of debates have raised their heads casting huge doubts over the decision making abilities of the people in charge of various facets of the world’s most popular sport.

Firstly, talk is growing over moving the 2022 World Cup, which is due to be held in Qatar.

In the desert. In summer. It doesn’t take a genius to spot there may be a few problems with the original plan.

Yet, that’s where it’s due to be – although the man who trumpeted the decision to award the tournament to Qatar, Sepp Blatter, has conceded that the idea may not be the greatest in the history of world football.

FIFA is a closed shop, and does not take kindly to scrutiny.

Indeed, the Sunday Times' temerity to present evidence of corruption within the governing body is often held up as one of the reasons England was overlooked for the 2018 World Cup.

Qatar was a bad idea from the word go. You know that, I know that and now the decision makers are admitting it.

The idea of being reverent to people who make such decisions in light of masses of evidence highlighting the fact is preposterous.

The same is currently happening in England, with regards to the national side and the Premier League. As I said last week, the England national side is no longer the top of the English game.

The Premier League, a marvel of marketing, is the pinnacle.

Yet the behemoth it has become is being questioned – is it really changing the game for the better?

Or is it just exacerbating the gulf between haves-and-have-nots in the Football League with overinflated parachute payments and stifling the production of indigenous talent with huge transfer fees for foreign stars? The new FA chairman, Greg Dyke, certainly thinks so.

However, it’s worth pointing out that Mr Dyke is one of the people who first floated the idea of a break-away top flight. He has since cited 'unintended consequences', but they are consequences that many ordinary folk brought up donkeys’ years ago.

The Premier League has now extended an olive branch as it tries to improve its image – the cynical may suggest it’s bad for marketability if the league is the fall guy for international failure.

Going to Qatar is not in the interests of the average football fan. Giving relegated teams ten times the cash their league rivals get is not in the interest of fair competition.

Just because someone is in a position of power, does not mean they know best or are acting in the best interests of all concerned. Ego and money are far stronger drivers than development and fairness.

No-one knows what the outcome will be when it comes to the Qatari World Cup or how the domestic game will adapt to improve talent from these islands – but changes won’t happen if football fans just accept the decisions of those in charge without at least asking questions.

Sir David Frost showed the power of asking few questions. The average football fan may not get a one-on-one with Sepp Blatter, but doesn't mean they can't have an impact in this day and age.