Fifa and Sepp Blatter’s reputations are undoubtedly in tatters after last week’s congress eventually led to its embattled Swiss president resigning yesterday, but we should not rush into supporting FA chief Greg Dyke’s vision for the future of the game.

Plenty has been said about last week’s alleged corruption revelations that have seen 14 officials indicted across separate Swiss & US investigations.

In case you were in space last week, I’ll summarise the mainstream narrative for you to save time: People might have taken bribes for their votes and therefore Blatter should have resigned before the presidential election because the buck stops with him.

But he didn’t and he somehow won the vote because he buys the support of less important countries than us, so now you should join us in calling for a European boycott of the next World Cup unless Blatter goes.

Now, don’t mistake that short summary for complacency on the issue of using one’s professional position for self-enrichment. That’s not my purpose, and nor do I intend to act as an apologist for Blatter, who undoubtedly used a patronage system to keep his position, in the same way pretty much all power systems work.

Rather, what ought to set our humbug alarms buzzing as citizens in a supposedly participatory democratic society is the implied notion that “our” privileged football bureaucrats have the good of the game more at heart than “their” privileged football bureaucrats.

Their argument goes something like this: Fifa delegates rejected the opportunity to oust the Swiss in favour of Jordanian Prince Ali bin al-Hussein, who would have set Fifa on a path to justice and accountability. And therefore you should swiftly make the cognitive leap from condemnation of alleged wrongdoing to readiness to withdraw from the body all together.

It’s one supported by the right-wing media — the same people telling those protesting against austerity down Whitehall to stop whinging and accept the democratic decision of the electorate to vote in a Conservative government, of course.

Let’s not tarry too long on the holes in the plot as far as the Blatter out, Ali in campaign was concerned, but they do at least merit a mention.

First, Blatter’s protests that none of the charges relate directly to him have generally been given short shrift. But irritatingly for his detractors that remais, at the time of writing and despite his resignation, factually correct.

And while Fifa should have expected that their decision not to publish Michael Garcia’s report into the 2022 bidding process would draw suspicion, the Swiss investigation specifically identifies Fifa as the victim of the alleged wrongdoing in the World Cup bidding, rather than the guilty party.

Blatter himself has described giving the cup to Qatar as the wrong decision, a view he reiterated by implication to the assembled delegates on Friday, when suggesting the current storm would not have happened if different countries had been victorious.

Could you imagine the Daily Telegraph casting David Cameron as the guilty party whose position was now untenable if the Scottish independence referendum had delivered a Yes vote, only for it to be discovered sometime later that a result the PM did not like had possibly been gained by dodgy means? Not likely.

Those in authority love to point fingers at their foreign adversaries on matters of international affairs. It can afford an effective mechanism as far as bringing on temporary amnesia among their own domestic populations with regard to the fact that it is only those populations who can hold them to account for their actions.

And it also puts in motion the tried and tested propaganda model of “this is the problem, here we present the solution for your approval.” It has worked well enough with regard to the dubious merits of privatisation and anti-trade union laws in western countries, so why not role it out with a view to taking control of international football?

The painting of Blatter as being to good governance in football as Russian President Vladimir Putin is to international security (a portrayal enhanced by the gimme of Putin himself reaffirming his support for Blatter on the Thursday) looks a textbook examples of both of these tactics of power.

Jordan (its leadership, not necessarily its general population) is a key US ally in the Middle East. And after the withdrawals of Luis Figo and Michael van Praag from the presidential election much of the West followed the US’s lead and united behind Hussein.

To give him his due, Husseins’s manifesto commitment to establish “clear guidelines that all host nations of Fifa events must adopt — ensuring the safety and security of every worker employed to deliver Fifa’s football projects,” had drawn praise from Human Rights Watch Gulf researcher Nicholas McGeehan on the issue of the awful death toll and lack of any rights for the bonded labourers in Qatar.

But was it a new-found love of workers’ rights that was behind the eagerness of figures from both the football and political spheres in the West to unite in their support for the prince? And is it this sense of solidarity that underpins their stated desire to boycott Russia 2018?

One suspects not, and that their action is about achieving a greater portion of potential revenues from international football tournaments than they are currently achieving for the corporate interests that they represent via their state-sponsored positions.

If that means tacitly supporting worker rights in Qatar, so be it. Even if in Britain’s case that means overlooking the fact that our own government is dragging its heels on whether to save displaced, desperate people from drowning in the Mediterranean.

When competing sectors of power unite it can only mean that they temporarily share a common goal.

The fact that even the Daily Mail afforded Uefa boss Michel Platini, of whom they had been critical on other matters, grudging praise for telling Blatter to go, suggests getting a bit more of the Fifa cake is an issue capable of bringing together strange bedfellows.

We were supposed to be impressed by the moral fortitude of British Fifa executive David Gill in not taking up his seat in protest at Blatter’s re-election — which he has backtracked in the wake of Blatter's resignation annoucement.

But the smart money is that the motivation behind behind that decision — as well as Dyke’s call for a 2018 boycott — was a preoccupation with the question of who benefits from ever-increasing broadcast revenues, with investor value on the infrastructure spending required to host an international sporting event also playing on their minds.

The fact that Dyke came to the FA after a career mainly in TV is likely no coincidence.