FA’s role as guardians of football left in a total mess by astonishing blunders made with Mark Sampson sacking

Mark Sampson’s sacking is only the end of the beginning for the Football Association. Senior figures at the organisation will already be shifting uncomfortably in their seats at the prospect of explaining themselves to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee on October 18.

The chain of events that led to the 34-year-old Welshman’s departure yesterday from his job as manager of the England women’s team is complicated. Indeed, FA chief executive Martin Glenn described it as “the most awkward and complicated issue I have ever dealt with” - but that does not excuse the systemic failures that leave the reputation of English football’s governing body as the game’s moral arbiter in tatters.

For the second time in 357 days, the FA have sacked a senior team manager for alleged unacceptable behaviour. On both occasions, they cited an aspiration of exemplary moral fortitude.

“We do believe as the national governing body we should hold ourselves to the highest standards,” FA chairman Greg Clarke said last night.

But how can the FA be trusted to uphold those standards when a closer examination of Sampson’s story reveals seemingly inherent shortcomings?

The FA were at pains to stress in both their statement and the press briefing at Wembley which accompanied it that Sampson’s departure was not related to complaints of racism made by former England striker Eniola Aluko.

Two investigations cleared Sampson of any wrongdoing in the Aluko case but the scrutiny her accusations have brought upon the FA in recent weeks surely has a direct relation to an anonymous whistleblower contacting them last week to suggest they might want to take another look into the earlier inquiry relating to Sampson’s time at Bristol Academy (now Bristol City Women).

Glenn described the following narrative as “self-disclosure” but, once again, the FA look awkwardly reactive rather than proactive.

Sampson was appointed England manager in December 2013. Three months later, anonymous allegations were made to the FA involving his work at Bristol Academy.

An investigation was launched, which lasted a year. He was cleared of any safeguarding risk but was asked to attend a development and mentoring programme designed to emphasise the appropriate interactions between coaches and players.

That was, seemingly, the end of the matter. Significantly, Glenn had seen the findings, produced by the FA’s own Safeguarding Investigations unit and presented to an independent three-man panel, in October 2015, once Sampson had completed his course, but did not explore the details. No further action was taken and yesterday Glenn admitted to making a “mistake” by taking the findings “at face value”, adding: “If I had known then what I know now, I would have probed further.”

And, suddenly, eight days ago, contact was made by an unnamed source with the FA’s head of legal and head of public relations to re-examine the affair. It was brought to Glenn’s attention and finally, belatedly, Glenn read the full report.

Sampson may have been cleared of any safeguarding issues but his conduct was deemed “inappropriate and unacceptable” after analysis by Glenn and Clarke, leading to Monday’s unanimous vote to remove him by the FA board.

But why did it take two-and-a-half-years for senior figures to see the full report? The threshold of what is acceptable for an FA employee cannot have altered so significantly. The delay, in hindsight, looks a dreadful failing. “The senior people involved at the time are no longer involved in the organisation but I would stress, if their experience was similar to mine, you are confronted with safeguarding reports and you are not expected to ask any of the details,” explained Glenn. “You are told ‘it has been dealt with and that’s not your job to enquire further’.”

This inter-departmental communication breakdown is, Glenn insisted, being addressed.

“The issue we are dealing with is having senior-enough scrutiny on the broader implications of a case, that a different part of the organisation might need to know,” he said.

“What is different is I have changed out the senior management team of the FA quite significantly in recent years and I believe I have got people who are able to deal with the organisational complexity about how do you deal and cope with important confidential information and have sufficient judgment to inform as necessary other parts of the organisation about their implications.”

The Bristol Academy report was never put before the board or its chairman, with its conclusion coming between Alex Horne’s departure as general secretary and Glenn’s arrival. If Glenn found “clear evidence of inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour”, then it is surely a dereliction of duty to allow Sampson to continue for more than two years in his role. Glenn paints himself as a new broom, making swingeing cuts to clear the jungle of bureaucracy that has often left the FA looking lost and confused. He insists the process for background checks has already been modified but questions will be asked of Sir Trevor Brooking, who Glenn cited as “the guy in charge at St George’s Park at the time, on the hiring panel” and his contemporaries as to why more was not done to unearth any potential issues involving Sampson before he was offered the job.

The whole situation is “a mess”, aptly described as such by sports minister Tracey Crouch. The FA’s handling of the Aluko case also warrants fresh discussion, not least since it emerged that Chelsea’s Drew Spence came forward to corroborate Aluko’s claims. The £80,000 pay-out to Aluko - despite Sampson’s innocence being maintained at the time - looks increasingly grubby. Damian Collins, chair of the DCMS select committee, hinted on Twitter last night at the grilling to come for Glenn and Clarke. “Today’s revelations re Mark Sampson show yet again that the FA’s system simply isn’t working,” he wrote. “An independent review is needed. A truly independent body, that whistleblowers within sport can go to with confidence is needed.”

Once again, the FA are facing calls for reform amid grave concerns about whether they are in a fit state to facilitate seismic change by themselves.