Feeble FA must answer questions over ‘hush money’
The Mark Sampson affair could obviously run and run. That Sampson should have been fired from his post as manager of the England women’s team hot on the heels of a triumphant 6-0 conquest of Russia in the World Cup qualifiers added a fresh dimension of irony to a controversy which seems to defy logic.
Certainly the women who thrashed the Russians seemed to have no doubt about their solidarity, even affection, for their coach – as vividly illustrated when they rushed to hug him after scoring the first of their half-dozen goals.
Yet one leading player after another had fallen by the wayside in the recent past, of whom none were more involved than the much-capped Eni Aluko. The salient question which remains fully to be explained is, why Aluko was paid that huge “hush money” amount of £80,000?
It scarcely seems to have hushed her, as she loudly and publicly trumpeted the case of Sampson, who when told her relatives were coming from Nigeria to watch an England game allegedly replied: “Well make sure they don’t come over with Ebola.”
Crude and gratuitous, but an insult worth £80,000? No one at the FA has begun to explain or justify such a payment; which if it were supposed to gag Aluko has certainly failed in its intent.
Through all this, the chief executive of the FA, Martin Glenn, has cut a pretty feeble figure. He insists that, though aware of a report on original accusations against Sampson, he did not take action until quite recently. It would not, he bizarrely said, have been “standard procedure” for him to enquire further about a potentially sensitive matter.
There had been problems for Sampson when previously coaching at the Bristol Academy, when he was sent on an FA Education course. But Glenn says it didn’t occur to him to ask why Sampson had been under investigation.
Glenn has cut a pretty dismal figure, but there are others who seem to have turned a blind eye to matters, not least Dan Ashworth, who presided over coaching and development, and Trevor Brooking, who presided over Sampson’s appointment.
No, this was not “an appalling race controversy” as some idiot wrote in The Guardian. Storm in a tea cup? That could well be closer to the point. But £80,000?