Football’s six-match ban on teen for asking a simple question exposes a broken system

8 November 2024, 12:13 | Updated: 8 November 2024, 12:46

The six-match ban handed down to a girl suspected of having autism after she asked a transgender opponent with a beard if they were a man has shocked many as disproportionate.

While there will undoubtedly be opposing views over the incident, it was no surprise to see football’s authorities go in two-footed with studs showing on a vulnerable youngster, hauling her before a National Serious Case Panel and reportedly reducing her to tears.

She found herself with the full weight of the football establishment pitched against her. It would not be so bad if it were a level playing field, but as one senior Football Association staffer quietly admitted to me: “I question if football and County FAs lack empathy in disciplinary matters.”

Football’s authorities loftily demand fair play and respect on the field but are none too keen to stick to those principles themselves as they ban players and eye up the money from fines.

In my experience, any ‘foul’ by a County FA is merrily waved ‘play on’ by the FA, supposedly the custodians of our national game, but in truth, an organisation failing to stand up for the ‘little’ people who make up grassroots football.

Since the Berks & Bucks FA decided to pursue two junior clubs in Reading after a skirmish last year, I’ve witnessed gross incompetence, disregard for inconvenient FA regulations that get in the way, manipulation of process, breaches of privacy law, evasion and cover up.

And this was in a case we won! Despite hounding both clubs for 104 days, the Berks & Bucks FA was thoroughly humiliated when a disciplinary panel threw out its calamitous case in less than 15 minutes.

Caversham AFC 1, Berks & Bucks FA (with all its resources and supposed expertise) 0.

Why, then, continue to make a fuss? Because, naively, I assumed there would be someone within the sport who had the integrity to ensure no other grassroots club, player, or volunteer would face football officialdom’s ‘dark arts’.

We ended up on the Berks & Bucks FA’s radar after having the temerity to challenge why the referee failed to file his report within the timeframe demanded under FA regulations. That was given scant attention but the association then suspiciously announced its own investigation into both clubs an extraordinary 33 days after the match. Usually, it’s a week.

Four months followed of the Berks & Bucks FA ignoring FA regulations, embarrassing admin blunders and shoddy practice, defence documents “mistakenly” not sent to the disciplinary panel, and GDPR breaches where private and confidential information was sent to the wrong people. In short, a shambles.

But more worrying was the Berks & Bucks FA’s refusal to investigate what appeared to be conflicting statements by a witness it was relying upon until after the disciplinary hearing.

I have now obtained an internal report in which the Berks & Bucks FA shamelessly admits: “On receipt of the complaint (and while it appeared to relate directly to the case) the decision was taken to delay the investigation of the complaint as it was directly related to the case and could jeopardise the discipline process.”

That’s right. Berks & Bucks recognised the “jeopardy” posed to its shaky case if it carried out an investigation into its own witness and had to confess the outcome to the panel. So it kicked that inconvenience into the safety of the long grass (yet still lost).

You’d imagine national FA officials would be furious at any attempt to keep relevant information away from one of its disciplinary panels as it may manipulate a disciplinary case. But no. Remarkably, its disciplinary division thought this was entirely reasonable, yet more proof of how – to borrow a metaphor from rugby – the scrum is screwed against grassroots clubs.

A complaint to the Berks & Bucks FA was strung out for six months before a U-turn from chairman Paul Thorogood MBE on the promise of a full and independent investigation. An in-house review into “human errors” was held instead – with the findings then kept secret.

The Berks & Bucks were forced, through a Subject Access Request, to release a copy of the review, but it heavily redacted the document first. What was revealed, however, was that it coughed to a staggering 14 failings requiring action, but as the image above shows, they are all blacked out.

This literal cover-up perfectly sums up football officialdom’s willingness to be honest and open. That the Berks & Bucks FA continues to hold the FA’s guarantee of good practice – the Code of Governance for County FAs – is astonishingly depressing and makes FA promises about the need for the best standards in English sport worthless.

The Independent Football Ombudsman is still due to adjudicate on one last matter but it is a technicality around process, while the FA just asked the Berks & Bucks FA to stick its policies on its website.

An independent regulator for the men’s elite game has been promised. Still, there is clearly a need for an organisation that will objectively protect the interests of grassroots players like 17-year-olds, volunteers, and clubs because the FA has proved that it can’t be trusted.

There are good people inside County FAs, but conduct like that of the Berks & Bucks FA and the condoning and protection afforded by the FA is bringing the game into disrepute.

________________

LBC Views provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email views@lbc.co.uk