Anja Niedringhaus/Associated Press

Almost six months after issuing a humble apology to English soccer officials for a referee’s botched call in the World Cup Round of 16 game against Germany, the FIFA president on Wednesday lashed out at England for being poor sports.

“To be honest, I was surprised by all the English complaining after the defeat,” Sepp Blatter told the Swiss magazine Weltwoche, referring to last week’s vote on the 2018 World Cup, not the defeat, 4-1, in South Africa, which might not have been as bitter. “England, of all people, the motherland of fair play ideas.”

“Now some of them are showing themselves to be bad losers,” he said.

Blatter, who was adamant that FIFA proceed with the World Cup vote despite corruption allegations, had said it was a mistake to award two tournaments at once. But he persistently defended the executive committee’s conduct, as evidence of malfeasance mounted, and dismissed claims that petrodollars or revenge or any other cynical motivation influenced the decisions to give Russia the 2018 World Cup and to award Qatar the championship in 2022.

A sting operation engineered by reporters from The Sunday Times appeared to catch two members of the executive committee, the panel that votes on the World Cup, trading their support for bribes. An ethics panel suspended them from the World Cup votes. A BBC television program also accused FIFA officials of corruption.

“I really sense in some reactions a bit of the arrogance of the western world of Christian background. Some simply can’t bear it if others get a chance for a change,” Blatter said. “What can be wrong if we start football in regions where this sport demonstrates a potential which goes far beyond sport?”

But that, as Rob Hughes of the International Herald Tribune points out, is a political move that, according to FIFA’s bylaws, is verboten.

“Article 3 of the FIFA rule book defines FIFA as neutral in the matter of politics and religion,” he wrote, saying if Blatter and FIFA’s general secretary, Jérôme Valcke, are to be believed, they should change the rules.

“It’s a political decision to open up onto the world. It was the same thing with hosts South Africa,” Valcke said after the vote, adding: “Some people say they are brave decisions. Others say they are decisions based on the principles of petrodollars.”

Does the griping from England, which appears far more pronounced than the disappointment in the United States, sound cynical? Or do critics like Roger Burden, acting chairman of the Football Association, have a point?

Burden said he would not seek to stay in the F.A. post because he can’t stomach FIFA’s corruption. “I had applied for the position of chairman. I recognize that an important part of the role is liaison with FIFA, our global governing body,” he wrote in a letter to board members. “I am not prepared to deal with people whom I cannot trust and I have withdrawn my candidacy.”

Blatter responded: “There is no systematic corruption in FIFA. That is nonsense. We are financially clean and clear.”