The problem for people who come up with good ideas is that these pearls of wisdom are often put into practice by people with no idea.

Take the 2002 World Cup, for example. FIFA got it absolutely right (although it had no idea why) when it decided that the 2002 World Cup should be cohosted between Japan and South Korea.

It wasn't an easy decision and it wasn't going to be easy to put it into practice, even with (or, especially with) FIFA's best minds on the job.

FIFA subsequently made a problematic execution even more difficult when it decided that half the teams (fans, journalists, etc.) would have to change countries after the first round.

Advancing teams may have to change again after that, making it a nightmare for organizers and fans alike.

Soon after that momentous decision, the chairman of the 2002 World Cup Organizing Committee, Lennart Johansson, defended the plan with the classic statement: "Nothing's too much of a problem for the fans, is it?"

Well, anyone who knows Japan and South Korea also knows that it will be a big problem for all involved, and it's a problem that could have been avoided by splitting the competition in two so that the only teams needing to move would be one finalist and one third-place playoff qualifier.

Very few people involved in the World Cup (teams, journalists, fans, Lennart Johansson) know anything about Korea and the difficulties of doing simple things there (such as getting a taxi, a bus, a decent cup of coffee). If they think Japan might present problems to visitors, multiply that 10-fold for Korea and 20-fold for those having to flip-flop between the two countries.

It's a problem that could have been avoided with just a hint of thought.

Now FIFA is struggling with another good idea: the unified calendar.

Hats off to FIFA boss Sepp Blatter for trying to bring about a calendar that will finally avoid the club vs. country controversy. In recent years, many club teams have reacted angrily to national teams calling up their players at crucial times. Until now, the clubs have been bound by FIFA rules to release players to national teams at certain times, whether or not it conflicts with the interests of those clubs, who get no compensation in return for the loss of their star players.

FIFA decided to put the problem in the hands of four of soccer's greatest players: Sir Bobby Charlton, Franz Beckenbauer, Michel Platini and Pele. They came up with the somewhat rigid idea that two months should be set aside in the summer for major events such as the World Cup, with an additional two-month break in the winter.

Also, they said the league season around the world should start in February and end in November, almost the same as the J. League, which immediately demonstrated how in tune it is with world thinking by declaring that from 2002 its league season would run from August to May.

The basis of FIFA's plan has some merit. It is vital that clubs and countries around the world are all on the same page. But it is not necessary for FIFA to take away the independence of national associations to schedule domestic matches and competitions.

European soccer's governing body UEFA has rejected the plan outright (probably because UEFA thinks it is more important than FIFA) and has flatly refused to be forced to change the season to February-November.

Apart from having an attitude problem, UEFA appears to be blind to a major problem facing its own members, namely the weather.

Every year, English and Scottish clubs raise the issue of having a winter break because of the bad weather in January and February. Every year nothing gets done. The Scandinavian countries, on the other hand, don't have any choice; soccer is impossible during the winter months. Other countries, including Germany, already take a winter break.

On the other hand, southern Europe swelters in the summer; temperatures of 35-40 C are not uncommon, making it not only uncomfortable to play soccer, but also dangerous. It's no fun for the fans either. In other words, a fixed February-November calendar in Europe would be totally impractical, reason enough for FIFA to amend its plans.

The upshot of this is that under the FIFA plan the domestic leagues need to be able to determine their own schedules. Practically speaking, there is nothing wrong in two countries within the same federation having different schedules. It may not be convenient; but it is workable, as the Scandinavian countries prove.

Another objection to the FIFA plan is the allocation of two summer months to international games and tournaments such as the World Cup. Tottenham manager George Graham suggests that this will increase the pressure on the top players, who, effectively, won't have a break at all.

Other critics have said that they want internationals throughout the year, not just during the planned July-August break.

This also has merit, as this year proves. While most Olympic Games are held in June and/or July, this year's Sydney Olympics will be in September, meaning that a lot of soccer players will be missing from their clubs at this time.

FIFA, therefore, has to be flexible on the issue of breaks within its calendar. While it might suit the bureaucrats of Zurich to fix the season and fix the breaks, there is a case for making both flexible while still remaining uniform the world over.

In other words, the calendar could change from year to year according to soccer's needs while keeping its main principles intact.

For the clubs to fix their schedules, they would first have to take into account FIFA's schedule for the year, then their regional confederation's schedule for the year and finally their domestic federation's schedule for the year.

It's a very straightforward system. The advantage for all with such a system is that everyone is on the same page. FIFA could schedule the breaks for whenever it wants and as often as it wants while the clubs would have a clear idea of when they can play their games without the fear of losing half their players.

Of course, all it requires is for FIFA's great minds to put a little latitude in their thinking and use a little flexibility.

Oh, alright! And for pigs to fly.