Q&A: How a day of drama unfolded for the FA at Westminster | Martha Kelner

Who was present at the House of Commons digital, culture, media and sport select committee hearing?

On one side was England footballer Eni Aluko and her former team‑mate and close friend Lianne Sanderson. On the other were four FA executives – the chairman, Greg Clarke, the chief executive, Martin Glenn, the technical director, Dan Ashworth, and the human resources director, Rachel Brace. Providing the questions was a panel of 11 cross-party MPs including the committee chair Damian Collins.

Where was the hearing held?

The Grimond Room in Westminster’s Portcullis House.

Why was there a DCMS committee hearing?

It is part of a House of Commons inquiry into sport governance, which has heard previously from Sir Dave Brailsford on the Team Sky doping allegations and Lord Seb Coe, president of athletics’ governing body the IAAF, on doping and corruption in his sport. This particular hearing was initiated to probe the FA’s handling of claims of discrimination made by Aluko, a striker with 102 England caps who alleged she and another player were victims of racial remarks made by Mark Sampson.

What were the main revelations?

The crucial revelation of the day was that a third enquiry led by the barrister Katharine Newton found the former England manager Mark Sampson had in fact made discriminatory remarks to both Aluko and another player, Drew Spence. He told Aluko to make sure her Nigerian relatives did not bring the Ebola virus to Wembley and suggested Spence, a mixed-race player, had been arrested four times. It contradicted the findings of two previous inquiries, which decided Sampson had no case to answer.

Why was Sampson not present?

Sampson was sacked last month by the FA after the “full detail” of a safeguarding investigation into his time while manager of Bristol Academy came to the attention of Clarke and Glenn. It was said the content of the allegations ranged from the “trivial to the very serious” and concerned inappropriate relationships Sampson had with female players.

Did the FA apologise to Aluko?

The FA executives began their evidence by offering an apology to Aluko but this was only in relation to the discrimination she suffered from Sampson. Glenn was offered four opportunities to apologise to her for failings in the FA process of investigating her claims but refused to do so. Clarke eventually did accept the governing body had let her down and sought out Aluko after the hearing ended, offering a handshake and attempting to set up a meeting with her.

What else happened?

It emerged that the FA withheld half of an £80,000 out-of-court settlement it had reached with Aluko. According to Aluko she was invited to a meeting last month at which Glenn tried to cut a deal that she either put out a statement saying the organisation was not institutionally racist or would not receive her money. “I felt that was bordering on blackmail,” she said. Glenn denied this was his intention.

How does the PFA fit into this?

Aluko has been represented by the PFA throughout. They raised concerns with Clarke in November 2016 that the FA had initially put together an internal inquiry that was “not a genuine search for the truth”. Clarke responded with a dismissive 14-word email: “I’ve no idea why you are sending me this. Perhaps you could enlighten me?” He claimed his response was because he had already been approached in person by the same PFA representative three times. He also noted he was very tired and had been working 22-hour days at the FA dealing with the child sex abuse crisis. Clarke later took an extraordinary swipe at the PFA, telling the DCMS they cut adrift a child sex abuse victim while at the same time paying their chief executive, Gordon Taylor, a salary of millions.

What happens next?

At the end of the hearing, Collins suggested all four representatives may not be the right people to lead the FA. There is an evidence session with the sports minister, Tracey Crouch, next month with the report on governance expected to be published in 2018. The report seems certain to recommend an independent body be set up to scrutinise the FA and will likely suggest an overhaul in how it deals with grievances.