No matter how much the old men in dark suits kick and scream and wring their hands, sooner or later soccer will be dragged into a more sensible future.
That future that, like it or not, will include the use of technology to resolve disputed calls on the field, and the game will be the better for it.
Did the ball cross the goal line? Was the forward offside? Did the defender handle the ball? The choice is simple: rely on the possibly obstructed views of the referee and his assistants or use the tools that other major sports happily employ.
Tennis sees no problem with technology. The NFL sees no problem with instant replay. Baseball now uses cameras and doesn't question the fact.
But soccer's rules-makers remain firmly fixed not just in the previous century, but in the one before that. A typical example is Swiss curmudgeon Joseph "Sepp" Blatter, FIFA's increasingly tiresome president, who turned 74 on Wednesday.
"The application of modern technologies can be very costly, and therefore not applicable on a global level," Blatter wrote on FIFA's website after the rules-makers last weekend rejected the use of any technology now and in the foreseeable future.
"This means that the game must be played in the same way no matter where you are in the world. If you are coaching a group of teenagers in any small town around the world, they will be playing with the same rules as the professional players they see on TV."
Why?
Why should youngsters kicking the ball around for fun on a dusty field in, say, El Salvador, need to abide by the same rules that apply to multi-millionaire athletes gliding across manicured lawns in Europe in pursuit of personal glory and silverware?
It makes no sense to demand the same of both. The higher the level of competition, the more there is at stake. The need, therefore, is to take every step to ensure that the sport at the highest level is as free from human error as possible.
If that means using instant replay or putting a microchip in the ball, so be it.
It is vital that competitions such as the World Cup, the European Champions League and the Copa America not be decided by bad calls. Mistakes, which are almost inevitable, only undermine the credibility of those tournaments.
Blatter argues that the use of outside aids would change nothing.
"No matter which technology is applied, at the end of the day a decision will have to be taken by a human being," he said. "This being the case, why remove the responsibility from the referee to give it to someone else?"
Louis Van Gaal, the veteran Dutch coach now in charge of Bayern Munich, has an answer to that.
"Technology is impartial and objective," Van Gaal told Germany's Kicker magazine in an interview in which he made more than a few eye-opening proposals.
Perhaps the real reason behind the reluctance of Blatter and his ilk to employ technology is that they appoint the referees and thus — in theory, at least — can influence their decisions.
Machines are not susceptible to bribes or even to gentle or not-so-gentle hints. All the more reason to fear them.
Radical ideas
According to Van Gaal, whose resume includes coaching stints with Ajax Amsterdam, Barcelona and the Dutch national team, there is plenty more that soccer can do to liven up things.
He would like, for example, to see throw-ins replaced by kick-ins. He wants penalty kicks abolished as a means of deciding tied games. He favors two referees instead of one. Above all, he wants to see technology accepted.
"It's mad that we do not use technology," the 58-year-old Dutchman said.
"We need two referees, as in basketball or ice hockey, on in each half, positioned diagonally. They would then be directly by the ball and able to see the backs of the players. They would be joined by a third referee, who would watch the game on computer.
"It doesn't matter where the computer expert would sit, whether at the edge of the field or up in the stand."
The Bayern Munich coach's position on penalty kicks is equally radical.
"If extra time is required following a draw, it should consist of two 15-minute periods, with each team losing a man every five minutes," he told Kicker. "After 95 minutes, 10 would play against 10. After 100 minutes, nine on nine. From the 115th minute, it would be six on six.
"Then only the best team would secure the win, not just a single player through a penalty."
If the score still was tied after 120 minutes, the game would continue at six on six until one team scored.
Such ideas are anathema to FIFA. The pity is, powerful figures who actually played the game at the highest level are not stepping up to make their voices heard.
Surely it is not too much to expect from Michel Platini or Franz Beckenbauer that they actually start acting like leaders rather than like sheep in Blatter's fold?
Short passes
