The Football Association’s senior management were left floundering on Wednesday, as they were forced to realise that their handling of Eni Aluko’s complaint of racism had, from beginning to end, been entirely inadequate. It was as if they had been shaken awake from a dream in which a little racist banter, such as telling a player of Nigerian descent not to let her folk bring in Ebola when they came to watch her play for England, was greeted with backslapping chortles. In their world, only a very bad sport would not laugh along. Unluckily for the FA, but happily for the wider game, Ms Aluko is not readily intimidated by any anxiety about fitting in to a racist culture. She is both courageous and well qualified, and she has brought the FA to humiliating account with a measured determination that finally bore fruit in front of MPs on the digital, culture, media and sport committee on Wednesday afternoon.
The complaint from Ms Aluko, who had won 102 caps but has not played for England since she first demanded action, has now been investigated three times. Only at the third time of asking were all the relevant witnesses, and Drew Spence, a second complainant, interviewed. And, the MPs learned on Wednesday, only in the third report did the QC conducting the inquiry conclude that the women’s coach, Mark Sampson (who was sacked in September after earlier allegations of inappropriate behaviour emerged), behaved towards Ms Aluko in a discriminatory way. Ms Spence had also been discriminated against. Later the FA apologised. But even in front of the MPs, its chief executive, Martin Glenn, refused to say whether or not he would pay the full £80,000 award that the organisation had agreed; it had been partially withheld, with Ms Aluko claiming that Mr Glenn had demanded that in return she issue a statement that the FA was not a racist institution. At the end, the committee chair, Damian Collins, concluded that it was “disappointing” that not a single one of those responsible was prepared to admit they had got it wrong: “You have to question whether they are the right people to take the organisation forward,” he said.
The FA’s record is abysmal. In December last year, four former FA chairmen and executives wrote a blistering letter to the MPs concluding that it was beyond reforming itself and that parliament should legislate for an external regulator. Ministers muttered support. Earlier this year, MPs passed a vote of no confidence in its governance. In May, the FA put some modest changes in train, including pledging to add three women to the currently all-male board and more black and minority ethnic members to the much larger FA council. To get even these modest changes agreed, the chairman, Greg Clarke, had to threaten to resign. The FA remains a sclerotic, inward-looking organisation with barely a point of contact with the 21st century – though its chairman and chief executive have been introduced as reformers.
This has been an extraordinary couple of weeks in which the unacceptable behaviour of men entrusted with power – and the unwillingness of people around them to challenge it – has been forced on to the public agenda by the devastating allegations about the behaviour of the Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, who is accused of exploiting his power to prey on women for 30 years.
This could be a catharsis, a moment to establish a new norm for appropriate conduct and a more mature and nuanced understanding of discrimination and the abuse of power. Even if a quarter of Britons admit that they are racist, many more would be horrified by the notion that they could or do discriminate – yet last week’s audit of racial equality revealed how discrimination persists, in access to public services, in the courts, in education (nearly one in three Oxford colleges failed to admit any black British student in a single year, new figures show). The #MeToo social media movement, in which women have shared their accounts of sexual harassment, assault and abuses of power, has shocked many men who never realised how widespread such experiences were – or thought to question their own actions.
People must be accountable. But focusing on the worst offenders can implicitly exceptionalise those cases, brush over lesser but more widespread behaviour and distract from the essential question: not whether someone is “good” or “bad” but whether what they have done is wrong . Focusing on actions is a step towards changing the broader culture and encouraging people to reflect and engage instead of dismissing those who dare speak up.
