After another day of Fifa madness, including the Jerome Valcke e-mail (Qatar “bought” the 2022 World Cup), a Sepp Blatter press conference at which he barely kept control over surly and mocking journalists … and Sepp’s assertion that “Fifa is not in a crisis” …

Well, any reasonable observer would have to say that he/she has about run out of hope for that mockery of a sham of a train wreck of an organization.

But instead of trying to reform Fifa … let’s walk away from it.

Create a new one. An exclusive one. One made up of football nations that believe in good governance, transparency and a rule of law.

This is what I am thinking:

Let’s have England’s FA launch this. Who has more credibility than The Masters of the Game? Who has been screwed over by Fifa more often than anyone else? Who has the most commercially successful soccer league?

England. England. England.

I trust these guys when it comes to running football competitions. And certainly to launching this, because they bring great credibility and expertise to the process.

So, let’s have a convention in London, with all the movers and shakers in the FA (including the clubs, who need to be heard as this Anti-Fifa is created) … and including a couple of dozen like-minded associations from other countries who believe in honest governance, transparency and the rule of law.

I’m thinking most of western Europe, much of central and eastern Europe, much of South America, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea, for starters.

Lay down the rules. To wit:

–An executive who is appointed by a board of directors modeled after, say, the United Nations security council — five permanent members representing the five elite football countries (England, Spain, Italy, Germany, France), and 10 members from the rest of the membership, on a rotating basis. One year in, 2-3 years out, for example.

–A legislative body of, say, 100 … made up of organization members on a scale proportionate to the fiscal impact of their domestic professional leagues. Again, the Big Five (above) would be heavily represented, but why not? They are the people who have demonstrated a love for the game and a knack for organizing it. In this organization, Holland, Argentina and Portugal might well have two representatives, the United States and Japan one.

–A strict and unbending membership standard. If your domestic league generates no money and attracts no fans, if it cannot produce unimpeachable and complete fiscal records, if it is prone to violence in the stands and match-fixing … you are turned down at the door. Talking about serious gatekeepers, here.

–If you get into the league but you elect representatives who are found to be corrupt … you are booted out of the Anti-Fifa on a two-thirds vote by the assembly. Can I reinforce this? No one has automatic membership, and once in doesn’t mean you stay forever. You can be booted if your federation goes bad.

I would suggest, too, that nations petitioning for membership be required to pass a particularly exacting set of standards and that they also be barred from the “security council” for the first decade, to make sure we have a good soccer country before we put them at the top table of the organization.

–Stage a once-every-four years world championship, a women’s championship, various age-group championships … replicating much of what the current Fifa does. But without the detritus of that rotten and corrupt organization.

Can we be frank?

Some of Fifa’s biggest problems are giving the same one Fifa vote to North Korea and Mauritius as they do to England and France. That emphasizes the weight of tiny countries with little or no significant soccer infrastructure or commercial impact — and puts them in charge, numerically, of the nations that matter in the sport.

And some of the other enormous Fifa problems can be traced to its large constituency of nations where corruption and bad governance are endemic. How can we expect their Fifa members to behave more honestly than their heads of state?

A World Football Federation would instantly attact most major advertisers because it not only would encompass the world’s elite footballing nations, but also because it takes in most of the nations with high per capita income. It would be commercially viable almost instantly.

Meanwhile, leave Fifa alone. Members of the new World Football Association … just walk away from Fifa. The guys in Zurich can continue to run all the competitions they want or can. But the World Football Federation members would not be taking part, thank you.

Admittedly, this is not an inclusive organization. It most certainly is not, and ferociously. This isn’t about world peace, remember, this is about a sport, and we are interested in a strong federation and competence, honesty and transparency. Not every country has that. Many do not.

How would this turn out? Presumably, the cachet, glamor, expertise, competence and wealth of the World Football Association would attract the members of the Fifa rump constituency … but they don’t get in just because they have a football association.

Again, the process is slow and exacting. And not everyone will get in. Perhaps Fifa stays alive, a sort of “second division world governing body” for the lesser footballing nations. It’s their call.

This is the direction to go. Don’t try to fix Fifa. Don’t blow it up.

Just walk away.

Create a new, better, clean, responsible organization, and then hold aspiring members to very high standards before they are allowed into the club. And tilt the governance of the organization toward countries with proven expertise in running soccer leagues.

Why can’t this be done … tomorrow?