What now for the Football Association?

The House of Commons has passed a "no confidence" motion in the Football Association's ability to reform itself after a debate brought by Damian Collins, the chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport select committee. Here, Press Association Sport, tries to answer some of the key questions raised during the debate and explain what might happen next.Q: What is wrong with the FA? A: The glib answer would be "where do you start?" Fifty-one years of hurt, some grassroots facilities in disrepair, the same faces making all the wrong moves. There is much to glib about but - and it is a big but - being glib is simplistic, because any fair assessment of the governing body must acknowledge the millions who still play the game, the coaches, the referees, the enduring popularity of the national team, the commercial success of the FA Cup and the growth of women's football. The blazers get plenty wrong but they are not all bad. However, t he FA has faced repeated criticism that its board is failing to reflect and represent the diversity of the game. Q: So why are MPs so unimpressed with it now? A: As Collins said in his preamble, MPs have been moaning about the FA's refusal to move with the times for half a century. That frustration has ebbed and flowed as the governing body has lurched from crisis to crisis, with moments of competence. The FA has also outlasted most spells of parliamentary pressure, as the FA Council's life vice-presidents can just wait for MPs to lose interest or their jobs. What has caused this current clamour for change is a combination of domestic factors - Collins' tenacity and the arrival of a sports minister with a clear plan in Tracey Crouch - and the enormous stink caused by FIFA's corruption scandal. Crouch put it best when she closed the debate by saying how can we criticise them without getting our house in order too. Q: But couldn't football say the same thing about MPs? A: Indeed and many in the game have. In an indignant letter to the 122 members of the FA Council, life vice-president Barry Taylor wrote: "I often wonder why the FA does not tell the government to concentrate on running the country and allowing the FA to run football. Why does the FA continually have to battle with different governments, who do not have to retire, have no age limit and have no term limits?". Even Nigel Huddleston MP admitted there were more Nigels than women on the CMS committee that has written two recent reports telling the FA to get more diverse and there was something odd about 25 MPs moaning about football after a better attended debate on the fate of Palestine. But two wrongs do not make a right and Crouch and shadow sports minister Dr Rosena Allin-Khan closed the FA debate with some refreshingly straight talking: stop messing about and sort it out. Q: What will be different this time, then? A: That is the key question. On Tuesday night, new FA chairman Greg Clarke made his feelings on the timing of this debate very clear. He pointed out he had been given six months in October by Crouch to come up with a plan and he is working on it right now. If he fails, he promised to quit. But he strongly rejected the idea the FA was failing the game in the meantime. Crouch agreed with him that this debate was six weeks early. But she also calmly restated her threat to withhold public funding from the FA if it fails to join the 21st century in terms of diversity and accountability. Putting Taylor in his place with a withering reminder of how important public money has been to football over the years, she dared the FA "to play Russian roulette" with public money and sounded very much like she meant it. Q: What happens next? A: That depends on the FA. Collins and his committee have already started drafting legislation to force the FA to revamp its board, council and relationship with the Premier League. Crouch has made it clear she wants more time for her carrot-and-stick approach and Clarke has said he will deliver the changes she has asked for or fall on his sword. The official FA Twitter feed spent the entire debate pushing out grassroots success stories and Clarke issued the tersest of statements to say he had watched the debate, respected the MPs' opinions and remained "committed to reforming governance at the FA to the agreed timescale of the minister". He has until April.

Source: PA