There are many reasons to look forward to the Final Draw for the 2018 FIFA World Cup. The draw, to take place on December 1 (10 a.m. EST, 15 GMT) in Moscow's State Kremlin Palace, will not only determine who plays who next summer, but will also set a historic precedent.

Sports broadcaster and former England striker Gary Lineker will share hosting duties with Russian sports journalist Maria Komandnaya. This marks the first time a female sports journalist is conducting the draw, and only the third time in history a woman with a background in football is involved.

Komandnaya, a familiar face in Russian sports coverage, has over a decade of experience in radio and television. Her resume includes FOX Sports, Match TV, and Moscow FM. She's also editor-in-chief of the-challenger.ru, a Russian fitness and lifestyle website.

Первый матч сборной в новых «Лужниках» на Первом — уже история

A post shared by Maria Komandnaya (@komandnaya) on Nov 11, 2017 at 7:07am PST

Komandnaya's presence will be a welcome change from the models and actresses that have graced the stage of the WC draw over the years. It would be highly optimistic, however, to say that it might not be long before a woman is front and center. After all, it took 14 World Cups for women involved in football to take part in the draw, and 17 World Cups for a woman to be one of the hosts.

The 90s took the draw to the next level, thanks to the first edition of the FIFA Women's World Cup in 1991. Players like Michelle Akers and Julie Foudy, who featured in the draws for WC 94 and 98, became household names. In fact, Akers, along with Mia Hamm, are the only two women named to the FIFA 100.

However, the novelty soon wore off. Despite the ever-rising popularity of women's football, the men's World Cup draw no longer featured female players as participants. Sure, Brazilian striker Marta was present at the 2014 World Cup Final Draw. But she never took part, not even as an assistant.

The draw for the 2018 World Cup has potential to be a turning point, one that will lead to a greater recognition of women in football - both on and off the pitch. The ceremony's influence cannot be underestimated - the 2006 draw was watched by 300 million people in nearly 150 countries around the world.

The WC draw has come a long way in its representation of women, but has an even longer way to go.

A Feminist's Timeline of the FIFA World Cup Draw

1930
- July 10, 1930
No records available.

1934
- May 3, 1934
According to Soccer Nostalgia, the grandson of General Giorgio Vaccaro assisted with the draw.

1938
- March 5, 1938
No women present. Jules Rimet's 10-year-old grandson, Yves Rimet, takes part in the draw.

1950
- May 22, 1950
No women at this draw, either.

1954
- November 30, 1953
The draw is made by Emil Landolt, then mayor of Zurich.

1958
- February 8, 1958
The draw is conducted on the set of Stora famnen at the Cirkus TV studio in Sweden. TV host Agneta Ljungström and another woman assist. This is the first known record of women at the World Cup draw. Radio presenter and sports journalist Sven Jerring, CONMEBOL rep Lorenzo Vilizio, and TV personality and journalist Lennart Hyland conduct the draw.

1962
- January 18, 1962
The only photo available shows male reporters at FIFA's office.

1966
- January 6, 1966
No women present.

1970
- January 10, 1970
The draw was made by Monica Maria Cañedo White, 10-year-old daughter of Guillermo Cañedo, president of the Mexican Football Association.

1974
- January 5, 1974
The draw was conducted in Frankfurt with the help of 11-year-old Detlef Lange, a member of the Schöneberger Sängerknaben boys' choir from Berlin.

1978
- January 14, 1978
No records available.

1982
- January 16, 1982
Spanish schoolboys assist in the draw, which made use of revolving drums. Confusion ensued when Scotland was placed in the wrong group.

1986
- December 15, 1985
Three young boys assist in the draw, held at the Televisa studios in Mexico City.

1990
- December 9, 1989
Italian actress Sophia Loren assists with the draw.

1994
- December 19, 1993
Three women share the stage as draw assistants - 1991 Women's World Cup champion Michelle Akers, Olympic gold medalist Mary Lou Retton, and actress/model Carol Alt. They're joined by several male celebrities. Robin Williams co-hosts the draw with FIFA president Sepp Blatter.

1998
- December 4, 1997
FIFA Women's World Cup champion and Olympic gold medalist Julie Foudy is the sole female assistant during the draw, held at Stade Vélodrome in Marseille. This is the only draw that has been hosted at a stadium thus far.

2002
- December 1, 2001
There is one female assistant during the draw. She is not identified in captions of photos from the draw.

2006
- December 9, 2005
The Final Draw is hosted by FIFA comms director Markus Siegler and model/actress Heidi Klum.

2010
- December 4, 2009
The draw is hosted by FIFA secretary general Jerome Valcke and actress/producer Charlize Theron.

2014
- December 6, 2013
FIFA secretary general Jerome Valcke is assisted by actress, model, and TV host Fernanda Lima.

2018
*To be hosted by Gary Lineker and Maria Komandnaya.
December 1, 2017
10:00 a.m. EST | 15:00 GMT
UK: BBC, ITV
US: Fox, Telemundo

by Aleks V

by Aleks V

Before you touch that rulebook...

When you have yellow and red, do you really need orange? You can ask that question to an artist. Or you can ask FIFA presidential hopeful Jerome Champagne, who spurred a giant debate on introducing orange cards to football for infractions that would deserve more than a yellow, but less than a sending-off. Orange cards would confine players to a "sin-bin", akin to a penalty in hockey - the offending player would sit out of the game for a certain interval of time.

But football isn't hockey.

If you keep changing the rules, are you improving the sport, or creating a new one? The same question gets asked when goal-line technology and other unconventional additions enter the field. There's logical reasoning behind GLT, though: we've seen some questionable goals over the years, and no matter how good your eyesight is, it's not always easy to tell whether the ball crossed the line.

Challenges are easier to spot, especially when there is more than one referee on the pitch. Law 6 of the Laws of the Game gives the assistant referees the right to advise the head official on any infractions that he may not have seen. When it comes to fouls, three sets of eyes, two kinds of cards and verbal reprimands is more than enough.

For many, changing the basic rules of the game would be like changing the U.S. Constitution. Regardless of the good intent, most will be against it, or for a more gradual, well thought-out change. People are reluctant to see the law amended because of the need to feel united under a common set of timeless principles. Legality and morality don't always intersect, but one thing they have in common is the desire for stability and consensus. Seeing the law as malleable would disturb that stability, causing many to question whether there is such a thing as justice at all, and that never leads to any good. If good even exists.

Trying to find the middle ground for punishment on the pitch sounds positive at first, but there may be a good reason change is slow. Sometimes the best way to avoid solving problems is to add more pages to the rulebook. Here's another thought: Instead of trying to change the rules, train referees to better enforce them. If they can't master already-existing principles, who's to say new rules would guarantee fairer decisions? Before we introduce anything new, let's talk about improving what we already have.

Why the anti-Brazil campaign should take it easy

With the biggest football tournament just one summer away, many have questioned the ethics of the host nation spending tens of billions of dollars on a sporting event while millions struggle with poverty, unemployment, and the ever-rising prices of public transportation. There's also the added danger of violent protesters who erroneously think that burning everything from tires to buses will do something about changing the costs of public transportation. When it comes to a large international tournament, however, it's highly doubtful there won't be increased security.

Every World Cup has a series of long-lasting effects on the host nation that will certainly be ignored and diminished in value by the pessimist, who will only note the obvious problems that arise with the tournament and add on to already-existing issues - the dirty streets, the traffic jams, increased hooliganism...What such a person fails to see is the true impact that the beautiful game has on a nation.

While stadiums may not directly improve the life quality of the population, they will continue to be used for football games long after the tournament is over, growing the sport and allowing more people to pursue their athletic dreams. More athletes means more opportunities for scholarships, and thus education.

"People are dying due to lack of infrastructure", says the boycott supporter, completely disregarding that this problem exists in many other nations, including those that have previously hosted large-scale tournaments. One could just as easily criticize supporters of bringing the Cup to the United States, where 36 percent of deaths in 2000 were due to social deprivation. Two years ago, almost 16 percent of the U.S. population had income below poverty level, a number that continues to rise as more and more workers are laid off in attempts to balance budgets. The poverty levels in Brazil have actually decreased tremendously as those of the U.S. have continued to linger.

Before the 2010 World Cup, South Africa struggled to meet its economic goals, in part due to a lack of much-needed infrastructure, such as public transportation. Hosting the WC pushed the government to take action and make significant improvements that last well beyond the duration of the tournament. That does not change the fact that people continue to die due to insufficient care in hospitals, but who's to say that a tournament should or must be the solution to this problem, or that the government is incapable of working towards solving such issues while simultaneously contributing to other aspects of the country's economy and culture?

An anti-World Cup post that was popular on tumblr.

"Violence against regular civilians" happens everywhere. Keeping up to date with the news in the United States shows just how many innocent people are cruelly gunned over the years down due to un-professionalism and carelessness of "law-enforcement".

The World Cup not only brings nations together, but bridges the gap between all corners of the world. People come together from across the many continents and bodies of water to enjoy the same passion they all share. Does that not make a great opportunity for some of these people to also volunteer and help when they are not going to games? Instead of protesting against hosting the tournament, why not rally the thousands of tourists to support the local populations and help out however they can?

Would you rather host the Cup in an overly-wealthy nation like Qatar, or in a nation where proceeds from tickets, souvenirs, hotels, and restaurants may provide a boost for its economy, all while entertaining the masses? Not all the money earned goes to FIFA, unless football's governing body happens to own all of the aforementioned services.

Football is also an outlet for creativity, much like the cinema or fine arts. Regardless of a nation's issues, would you protest any government investing millions of dollars in museums?

Boycotting the World Cup isn't going to solve Brazil's problems, and hosting the tournament may not contribute as much as is necessary, but it certainly will bring more good than harm, and at the end of the day, that is always welcome.

Hooligans among the Ukraine NT's supporters. Source: RIA Novosti

The Ukraine and Peru national football teams have been forced to play their upcoming FIFA World Cup Qualifying games without the presence of supporters. FIFA's Disciplinary Committee cites reports of incidents involving pyrotechnics, plus various racist, discriminatory gestures, such as the display of neo-Nazi banners, during Ukraine's game with San Marino (9-1), and "crowd disturbance incidents" in Peru's game against Uruguay (1-2) to justify their decision. The lack of supporters in the stands will no doubt affect the run of play for both Ukraine and Peru's next qualifying games. As everyone knows, fan support is a significant factor in establishing an environment that motivates and encourages players to put on their best performance.

Even more disturbing was FIFA's decision to extend part of Ukraine's punishment (not playing any qualifiers at Lviv Arena) to the 2018 World Cup qualifying games. The FIFA committee's decision has distinct parallels with UEFA's actions against Metalist Kharkiv a few months ago, when the club was prevented from advancing to the 2013/14 Champions League play-off round due to alleged evidence of match-fixing of a 2008 Ukraine Premier League game against Karpaty Lviv. Both cases treat an isolated conflict as a whole - if supporters were unruly, why not ban all supporters? If a match was fixed, why not punish the entire club and players?

FIFA redefines and prides itself in taking the easy way out. It seems so much easier to blame an entire entity for a few hooligans who could have just as easily been escorted out of the stadium. The Disciplinary Committee is really an oxymoron. Instead of taking action against specific individuals, it creates the illusion that, with a flick of their magic wand, the larger problem - hooliganism - goes away.

In fact, this type of punishment will always have the opposite of the intended effect: it will not stop the hooligans from acting, nor will it stop them from existing. Rather, it shows that they can (and will) get away with what they set out to do, and while the national teams and disciplined supporters suffer, the perpetrators will remain untouched. It is hard to believe that there isn't photographic evidence and video footage available from both the Ukraine and Peru games that shows the exact persons involved in both incidents, just as it is hard to believe there wasn't any stadium security present that didn't witness the events.

It is against the virtue of justice itself that the many are punished for the actions of the few. Yet this notion is reinforced both in and outside of football, from grade school to adulthood, in Europe and the Americas. By making everyone but the hooligans feel shame and guilt, the people that would otherwise not have partaken in law-breaking in the first place are given a "warning". In the end it is nothing more than a "temporary fix" to keep the real law-breakers at bay.

According to FIFA, "should such incidents occur again, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee would be left with no other option than to impose harsher sanctions against these associations, which could go as far as a match forfeit, a points deduction or disqualification from a competition". But what do the federations - or, more importantly, the players - have to do with a handful of troublemakers?

If the consequences do not bring long-term results, such as minimizing or removing hooliganism from games, what, then, is the purpose of the punishment?

FIFA's committee fails to give us an answer.

--
Update: FIFA has suspended punishment for both Ukraine and Peru until after their respective Qualifying games. According to FIFA, "only once the FIFA Appeal Committee has had an opportunity to decide on the appeals will FIFA communicate further information on the two cases." 

Though unlikely to be introduced soon, video replay remains promising in the world of football

If a foul occurs in the box but no one is there to see it, is it a penalty? Unlike the question of the tree that falls in the deserted forest, there are immediate witnesses to a foul: the players and the fans. Yet neither have the power to influence the referee's decision to administer a penalty. Supposing the official himself was a witness, and millions of television viewers saw him standing in front of the spectacle and failing to blow his whistle. Consider a scenario where there are six officials present, all of them equipped with headsets that make communication with the head referee possible. The episode with the foul is apparently seen by all but the officials, who refuse to acknowledge it. What should be done?

FIFA president Sepp Blatter has tried (and failed) to make a valid point for choosing not to invest in video replay since the 1990s. Skeptics such as Blatter and certain groups of fans have constructed misconceptions on video replay. They erroneously fear that drastic, technological additions to the sport would take away from "the human element" of the game. Although Blatter reopened the issue on goal-line technology being used for the World Cup after the infamous "goal that wasn't" that would have tied England's game against Germany in 2010,  video replay outside of just goals is unlikely to be considered anytime soon.

There's more at stake here than loss of the human element. Goal-line technology itself is already proving to be a costly endeavor. Although FIFA has approved a list of goal-line systems, including Hawk-Eye, installing and testing the system would be a financial burden on many leagues. The English Premier League is an exception, having already made use of Hawk-Eye, equipping all 20 stadiums with the system. Few leagues have clubs whose owners can spend around £250,000 (over $404,000) at will. However, there is quite a lot of money involved in the sport already. There are multiple clubs in Europe that are certainly not short on dough and have big-name sponsors. The Russian Premier League's Zenit is owned by oil giants Gazprom, and various other clubs, such as PAOK, are owned by wealthy oligarchs. If clubs can pay insurmountable amounts for overrated players who don't live up to the hype, it seems senseless not to invest in goal-line technology. Selling the system will only earn FIFA more money, and if more leagues buy the product, economies of scale will mean its price will drop, while its accessibility soars.

Since one action inevitably leads to another, it wouldn't be long before video replay would follow suit. An extra official checking a monitor still retains the human element, and in today's world, this can be done as fast as clicking a "like" button. Besides, the EPL's Hawk-Eye system is completely automatic, and there doesn't seem to be a backlash at its use and lack of human involvement.

When one asks whether or not precious time will be taken away from the game to investigate replays, there are two questions that must be considered. Do fans of sports that have instant replay ever voice their discontent with the system? If so, they must be convening outside the realm of social media in a retro forum - a la ancient Rome - to discuss their qualms. Second, how long does it take viewers watching at home to access video highlights? The increasing availability of nearly-instant snippets of significant match events can't be overlooked. It's certainly a strange image when today's fans are the ones with more technology at their fingertips than the decision-makers on the pitch.

FIFA is so concerned with banning fans from stadiums and accepting mindless World Cup bids that no time is left for making critical decisions that will benefit the game in the long run.

In the so-called age of rationalism, isn't it rational to expect objectivity? Why leave everything up to chance when there's an option not to? No matter how many referees are added, the element of human error will forever be present, but no matter how much technology is added, the element of human reason will be just as alive.