Daily Mail

MARTIN SAMUEL

- MARTIN SAMUEL

They offered up Mark Sampson, they offered up a few apologies, and they thought that would do. It did not do. It never could. The FA are in too deep now. This has moved beyond the actions of one rogue employee.

This is so much greater than Sampson and his clumsy attempts at banter. This is a watershed moment for the organisati­on and those at its helm. There has to be change from here because this cannot stand.

Laid out in excruciati­ng detail yesterday was a scandal that goes to the very top of the FA. It was the complacenc­y that appalled, more than any disclosure­s laid before Damian Collins’ select committee.

Mostly, the MPs heard the rehashing of old tales. Much of the evidence was already in the public domain. The real revelation — and there were occasional gasps in the auditorium — was the mood, rather than the detail, the shockingly casual ineptitude of those answering the politician­s on football’s behalf.

Greg Clarke, Martin Glenn, Dan Ashworth and Rachel Brace, the FA’s director of hR. Clarke described talk of institutio­nalised racism as ‘fluff ’ and was then forced to apologise. None had heard of the Lucy Ward discrimina­tion case at Leeds United.

Asked if the FA had failed in its duty of care to its players, Glenn would admit only that his organisati­on had ‘made mistakes’, as if this was in any way adequate.

how could they have been so under-prepared? how did they not take this seriously? Clarke’s terse email response to criticism of the Sampson inquiry from the Profession­al Footballer­s’ Associatio­n was clearly no moment of weakness. he does think like that. he looked affronted that his stewardshi­p was being questioned. With this man leading, no wonder his staff performed so poorly under scrutiny.

Brace’s statements were immediatel­y contradict­ed by the evidence. Ashworth led an inquiry into Sampson’s behaviour, in which he was also a key character witness for the defence.

As each statement tumbled out, never has the FA looked less fit to govern. What should have been a straightfo­rward investigat­ion into the relationsh­ip between a coach and his players, what could have been cleared up with tough questions and honest responses, has become a shameful episode that may cost all four executives their jobs.

It is hard to make a case for any of them, frankly. Nobody emerged with credit, nobody did the right thing under pressure.

every piece of damning testimony that the MPs heard, was originally available to the FA months ago. The goalkeepin­g coach who would talk to eni Aluko in a mock Caribbean accent, the identity of the player offended by Sampson’s banter, the attempts to alienate dissenting players from teammates. It was all there. The FA chose not to look.

Ashworth provided the names of 16 players lawyer Katharine Newton could meet to inform her independen­t inquiry — none of whom were in the room when Sampson (right) clumsily upset Drew Spence.

That isn’t incompeten­ce or coincidenc­e. It is an indefensib­le attempt to steer the evidence in one direction. And why would he do that, unless it was a company decision, made on high? The PFA were right in claiming the Sampson investigat­ion was not a serious attempt to find the truth. Its aim was to clear Sampson and so protect the FA brand. how can footballer­s, of any colour, of any gender, have faith in the governing body, if this is their priority? It was all too convenient. The timing of the third inquiry that this time found for Aluko on several fronts — the hindsight, the revisions, the apologies, the mitigation­s for contradict­ory evidence. The one benefit of select committees is that, unlike Press conference­s, their hearings cannot be swiftly curtailed when the going gets tough.

The FA were made to squirm as their attempts to cover up the traces unravelled. Brace said that Newton, the lawyer leading the independen­t inquiry, had found no fault with the FA’s own investigat­ion. She then had to listen to Newton’s verdict, stating quite the opposite.

Glenn said it was at the end of a long day when he told a newspaper that Newton, who is black, was selected specifical­ly because of her sex and ethnicity, that he had mis-spoke. Collins reminded him that this was a highly convenient explanatio­n, particular­ly as his initial one made Newton’s appointmen­t unlawful.

Newton, who is not a QC, must be cursing her luck for having her name associated with this cabal of incompeten­ts. CLARKe

was another who blamed long working days for lapses of governance. At no time did they convince as suitable custodians of the game. The nagging thought is that, throughout, they did not take Aluko and her complaints seriously. Maybe that was because this was women’s football and nobody would care.

Maybe because it was a he saidshe said race case, and these are so hard to prove. Maybe because they thought Aluko could be bought off. Maybe because they valued the worth of the FA brand over an individual’s grievances.

Ultimately, that is the most damning thought. That they did not want to protect Sampson, who has been well and truly chucked under the bus now the heat is on. They wanted to protect what he represente­d. Them, and their precious brand. Them, and their precious commercial partners. Them, and their precious image.

And they have lost, heavily, because in prioritisi­ng their reputation it has been lost with those who matter most.

What player can trust the FA now? It is so far beyond sorry.

 ?? PA ?? Shambles: the handling of the case asks questions of Greg Clarke’s suitabilit­y to chair the FA
PA Shambles: the handling of the case asks questions of Greg Clarke’s suitabilit­y to chair the FA
 ??  ?? Damning evidence: Sampson
Damning evidence: Sampson
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom