I cannot understand why FIFA does not want to use technology in assisting referees officiating at World Cup and other football matches. And I am not alone in feeling this way. I believe that millions of fans all over the world feel the same too.

This is despite repeated calls by both current and former great players, top football officials, commentators, and the fans all over the world. The latest demand for the use of technology was sparked by Carlos Tevez’s offside goal in the 2010 World Cup which was allowed and Frank Lampard’s which was not.

The ruling out of Lampard’s goal was simply outrageous, to say the least. I’m no England fan but hey, a goal is a goal. Millions saw the ball bounced into goal. Sadly the referee did not. Television replays made it very clear it was a goal. But the referee did not have the benefit of TV replays. And FIFA wants to keep it that way.

Blatter and Platini , top guns in FIFA and UEFA, feel that technology will “disrupt the game”.

In the wake of the latest controversy, FIFA is saying it would use technology only “if a system is 100 % perfect”.

And TV replays are not, if I may ask?

FIFA had previously “experimented” with a micro chip implanted in the ball to detect if it had crossed the goal line but it never get beyond the experiment stages.

And FIFA even toyed with the idea of placing a referee behind each goal post making it five officials per match. Nothing came out of it either.

So we continue to have controversies in football matches. Especially during the big games.

And controversies, in the worlds of a CNN sport commentator, “affect the lives of many”. Yet FIFA does not want to budge.

Perhaps FIFA wants the controversies arising from bad calls by referees to remain? Perhaps ity wants to keep the controversies alive?

Of course, FIFA does not create and orchestrate the controversies but is it happy to have the controversies prolonged and continue to happen?

Perhaps FIFA believes the controversies are good for the game as people talk about it endlessly?

Take, for instance, the 1966 final between England and the then West Germany. After 44 long years, people are still talking of the controversial goal by Geoff Hurst of the three lions. That incident fuelled all subsequent England-Germany encounters.

And when Lampard’s attempt (which had the characteristic of Hurst’s shot) was disallowed everybody associated with football drew parallel.

And future England-Germany matches will surely continue to be fiery. The rivalry among their players and fans continues to get heated up .

Such a controversial scenario may be good for the media, good for ticket sales and good for global TV ratings, and with it may come all sorts of sponsorships . In other word, such controversies could bring in the money -- millions and millions of dollars.

Remember Maradona’s “hand of God” goal in 1986? People still talk excitedly about it. And whenever England meet Argentina we get more excited recalling the controversial incident.

Imagine what would have happened if technology had been used then. Let’s say TV replays showed Maradona had handled the ball and the goal was disallowed. The game would have gone on normally and at most we would talk about it for a week.

In international rugby and tennis , officials have the luxury to rely on video replays whenever they are not sure what had happened. They are allowed to play the scene over and over again until they are very sure what had taken place.

Hence, they can make undisputed calls. The game goes on and everybody goes home happy. No animosity between officials, players and fans.

After the game, any memory of the on-field actions will eventually fade away after a while. Life goes on until the next game comes around.

But with controversial on-field decisions , nobody forgets the disputed game. Everybody works into a frenzy and eagerly or angrily awaits the next game to extract revenge. Full stadium capacity and huge TV audience are assured. Good marketing skills? Shrewd business tactics? Is that what sports is all about ?