The FA’s moral stance over Big Sam is laughable after past appalling behaviour

In 2006, the BBC’s Panorama programme accused Sam Allardyce – a man ready to take umbrage if accused of being Sam Allardyce – of corruption. So umbrage he duly took after Panorama covertly filmed his son asserting their involvement in three specific transfers, along with supporting comments from another man involved. Allardyce denied the claims and threatened to sue; he never did, and though a later inquiry could find no evidence of irregular payments, he was one of two managers about whom specific concerns were raised.

Because people rarely change, it was not entirely surprising when he was stung again. When money and status were hoyed into a single package – travel abroad, deliver a “keynote speech”, earn lots – Allardyce, a man of confidence and conviction, waded in.

These are the precise qualities that persuaded the FA to appoint him England manager, and in different circumstances he would probably relish this Shakespearian element. But he was passed over for the job the last time no-one of requisite quality was available, and may well have felt that his chance had gone, such that when it transpired to the contrary, he was quite possibly the happiest man in the history of humanity, his relaxed air that of a man who deserved everything he had.

But now, just 67 days later, he’s been fired in disgrace for saying silly things to journalists pretending not to be journalists; a lifetime of regret is all his, and for what? Well, he said that rules of third-party ownership can be circumvented; they can. He also said he’d like £400,000; who wouldn’t? Then he said that before taking it, he’d need to check with the FA; he would. After which he said critical, unkind things about Roy Hodgson and Gary Neville; who hasn’t and who cares? And finally, he said that the FA spent far too much money redeveloping Wembley; they did. So, he was stupid; who isn’t?

Or, put another way, in four hours of prompting, Allardyce didn’t accept a bung or admit to taking a bung – quite the reverse – and it seems fair to posit that the Telegraph did not get what they really came for. In which case, why the fuss?

Well, in the first instance, Allardyce is neither likeable nor outstanding, so there will be no backlash to his tinning. He is not so talented a manager as to be irreplaceable, nor, necessarily even much of a loss; no-one, bar Allardyce himself, could say with certainty that he would do a better job than Eddie Howe, Jurgen Klinsmann and the rest.

But Allardyce’s real infraction was not the substance of what he said, rather its easy positioning as a scandal that embarrasses the FA. Because, in the eyes of those who run the organisation, there is no graver sin – provided the perpetrator is not one of their number.

So it was that Greg Clarke, its chairman, levitated to the moral high ground to proclaim his body as “guardians of the game”, also invoking the need to “protect the integrity of the FA”. Quite who cares about this beyond a few board members is hard to say, but it is worth noting that Jeremy Moxey, its Football League representative, has presided over Wolves' slide towards oblivion; landed a sponsorship deal with pawnbrokers The Money Shop; and been an adult who goes by the name “Jez”.

It is also worth noting that in 2005, the FA allowed the Glazer family to secure the debt they incurred in buying Manchester United against the assets of the club, also using them to pay it down and pay themselves dividends in a package worth close to £1bn; in 2007 and 2008, they deemed Thaksin Shinawatra and the Abu Dhabi United Group as “fit and proper” owners of Manchester City, despite criticisms from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International; in 2011, they allowed John Terry to continue as England captain though he was under investigation for racism; and in 2015, they supported Michel Platini’s candidacy for FIFA president, though he was under investigation for receiving an illicit payment of £1.3m.

This is not to say that because the FA has acted immorally in the past, it should continue to do so now. But never has it criticised itself for this appalling behaviour, nor has it sacked any of its suits, so presenting itself as a paragon of moral rectitude to justify firing someone for heinous crime of gobshiteing is as laughable as it is enraging.

Yet according to Clarke, Allardyce’s position is “untenable”, as though a portion of contrition and a dose of humiliation would not placate things before, at the start of next week, the England squad gather and football takes over; as the FA knows well, it is a spectacularly effective masking agent. For reassurance, they need only have consulted precedents in other industries – politics, say – to remind themselves that those tasked with jobs of actual importance like, say, running countries, have survived far more serious offences, because they were appointed for their ability, not their morality.

And no-one could possibly think that Allardyce was employed on account of his morality - despite Clarke’s self-serving self-defence. “A cracking job,” was his evaluation of a tenure that comprised a single awful performance, rescued by a late goal. “Sam was recruited in the right way,” he proclaimed. “All the things that came out happened after he joined us so we could not have found them in due diligence.”

Which is true, if you chose to ignore pre-existing and public allegations of corruption, as the FA did. Had they refused to appoint a manager of questionable honour, it would have been entirely reasonable, moral and sensible. But they did not, and dismissing their "ideal candidate” for offences junior to their own says far more about the FA than it does about Allardyce.