With 13 pots to pick the balls out of, you can probably say one of two things about last Saturday's World Cup draw in Korea: it was either potty or a load of balls.

I managed to lose track of things after they had finished off the European sides, i.e., the easy bit. My brain didn't work fast enough to see why certain teams had to go in certain places when there appeared to be other options available. It looked to me at the time that master of ceremonies Michel Zen-Ruffinen, FIFA's general secretary, was manipulating things according to his, or FIFA's, wishes.

Which was, of course, the case (although I wasn't able to verify a claim by an official of one participating country that Zen-Ruffinen actually half-opened one ball and then replaced it after seeing what was inside. The official claimed the draw was "60 percent manipulated.").

Well, to some extent, it is true the draw is manipulated, but is it a negative thing?

Much of the problem this time around stemmed from the fact that the World Cup is being held in two different countries and FIFA was concerned that neither country got the better of the draw. In addition, because of the imbalance of the teams -- it's not actually the best 32 teams in the world, merely the best from each confederation, which is an entirely different thing -- FIFA tries to avoid all the best teams getting lumped together so that the top teams are not eliminated in the early stages (unless it's England). This is one of the reasons why there is a separation of certain teams and a seeding of the top eight (OK, the top six plus Japan and South Korea, the two host nations).

On top of that, FIFA tries to have teams from the same confederation avoid each other in the first round because . . . er . . . well, I think they have a reason. Probably, they're just sick of the sight of each other (the teams, not just FIFA's top officials). Europe, as the strongest confederation and with the most teams in the draw (15), can't help but face another European team (except in one group), but again they are spread out evenly.

So even before the "draw" gets under way, much of what transpires has been predetermined in an effort to provide balance.

This time around, however, FIFA made one of its bizarre rationalizations and said it had to put China in a South Korea-based group.

Why? According to FIFA, because . . . oh dear . . . er, I'm sure they had a reason . . . Oh yes, that's it, because China has a close relationship with South Korea (that's true, China invaded South Korea 48 years ago so desperate was it for a close relationship and . . . um . . . strategic military positions) and because the people of China are not so rich.

Unlike the filthy rich billionaires of Senegal, Tunisia, Poland, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Croatia and Cameroon, who, naturally, failed to get similar considerations from FIFA (although some of them did manage to end up in South Korea).

The point is: Why the hell is China getting this extraordinary dispensation from FIFA when there's certainly been no precedent?

OK, so there hasn't been a cohosted World Cup before, so FIFA hasn't needed to -- or been able to -- make such a dispensation. But on what basis is such a dispensation made? And where does it end?

In the German World Cup in 2006, will the western European countries get a place in the old West Germany and the former Communist Bloc countries be herded into the old East Germany?

Will FIFA steer predominantly black teams away from the strongholds of Germany's neo-Nazis and put England's thugs (Alan Smith, Lee Bowyer) there instead?

Will they let the beer-guzzling Belgians play all their games in Munich?

If Israel qualifies, will they let it play its matches in the Netherlands?

Ah ha! you say. He's made a mistake. There is a precedent, of a kind, for this kind of thing. Israel plays in European qualifying matches for the World Cup because nobody in Asia (i.e., Muslims and Arabs) wants to play them. This is true, but perhaps it shouldn't be. Under the current political situation, it would be good if the Arabs and the Muslims said they REALLY wanted to play Israel and please let it back into the Asian fold where it belongs. The prospect of the Israeli team traveling to face the likes of Iran, Iraq and Syria -- Palestine, even -- would certainly be worth the price of a ticket.

The point is, FIFA found it expeditious to include Israel in Europe.

Now it tells us it is equally expeditious to put China in South Korea. Why?

Because of all the poor people in . . . OK, OK, stop it! It's nothing to do with that. Quite the opposite.

In fact, it's nothing to do with China (which isn't as poor as the countries mentioned above; don't we hear almost every day how many millionaires there are in China?); it's rather a lot to do with South Korea.

Unlike Japan, which boasts some pretty decent sales figures, the sale of tickets in South Korea has been pretty dreadful. The likes of Seogwipo and Jeonju had barely sold 10 percent of their tickets before the draw.

Putting China in South Korea will guarantee an influx of fans -- up to 100,000, according to one newspaper -- from the Communist state, boosting the troubled tourist and aviation industry in South Korea. One report estimated it could be worth $200 million to South Korea.

And it would save a certain amount of embarrassment for Dr. Chung Mong Joon, the head of Korean soccer who is thought to be a contender for the presidency of both FIFA and South Korea in the future. Empty stands and a red bank statement would not look good for someone seeking an electoral office.

It's no doubt also a relief to the Japanese, who probably feel they have enough Chinese here already (more arriving on a beach near you soon) and who might have to be nice to people they obviously have contempt for (cf. books, history -- filed under fiction).

So, a nice bit of political maneuvering, but why did it end there? Why didn't Japan get the Brazilians as there are so many Brazilians already in Japan? Why put the Americans in South Korea where they are despised by many people. Why not put them in Japan where Japanese politicians can sneak up behind them and (no, little Tommy, not bomb the crap out of them) kiss their asses as they usually do?

While it is not necessarily a negative move, FIFA seems to be drifting away from hosting an open tournament to one manipulated to suit the needs of a few -- or should I say, a few officials. The decision not to allow the defending champion of the 2002 World Cup an automatic entry into the subsequent World Cup also took the world by surprise. No debate, no forewarning -- an executive decision made behind closed doors.

A little transparency is needed, otherwise Mr. Zen-Ruffinen will have no balls left to play with.