David Conn: FA obstruction invites big stick of regulation

Football's dabble with self-regulation could be heading for failure if the football authorities do not co-operate more fully with the Independent Football Commission, which launched its first annual report this week after a frustrating year described as "abrasive" by its chairman, Derek Fraser. The authorities themselves asked the Government to set up the IFC to stave off the idea of firmer regulation, but this year, led by the Football Association's joint acting chief executive Nic Coward, they have failed to provide basic help and information, continually questioned the IFC's right to look into issues, and were criticised this week for "unacceptable delays" in responding to complaints from supporters about Wimbledon's move to Milton Keynes, and racism.

When the Government sanctioned the establishment of the IFC in December 2000, it said it would decide after three years whether football had put its house voluntarily in order, or whether firmer regulation is required. There is now some food for thought for the Sports Minister, Richard Caborn, who, at Monday's launch, compared football's current financial crisis to the 1980s catastrophes in the coal and steel industries.

A cosy affair, the launch did an injustice to a serious first report by the IFC which, while welcoming many improvements to clubs' and football authorities' relations with supporters, contained some notably tough talk, citing "a popular perception that football is unduly mercenary and uncaring", and must take "urgent steps to... improve perceptions".

The launch belied, too, the bitterness of the tensions between the IFC and the authorities, who, mostly led by Coward, have sought to restrict the activities of the new body. "There has been some abrasiveness," Fraser said. "We have had to have several 'clear-the-air' sessions about our remit and have spent a lot of time chasing basic information."

Julian Wild, one of the IFC's commissioners – who give their time for free – described as "completely unacceptable" the FA's delay in dealing with a complaint from Wimbledon Independent Supporters' Association (WISA) against the decision of an FA-appointed commission to allow the club to move to Milton Keynes. "If this is going to work, the FA has to co-operate, but unfortunately they have looked to constrain the IFC and not co-operated fully with us."

The story of the WISA complaint is somewhat depressing. Aghast at the decision, WISA wrote formally to the IFC on 24 June last year, asking for "redress both for the decision itself and the manner in which it was taken". Highly professionally set out, as is all WISA's work – shortly afterwards it set up its own club, AFC Wimbledon – the letter identified six core complaints, four relating to the way the commission reached its decision, one which questioned how the commission's members were appointed, and one arguing that the League and FA should have blocked the move themselves but had "abdicated responsibility".

When the IFC met the football authorities on 2 July, Coward argued strongly that the IFC could not pursue it because WISA's letter was not in fact a complaint, but only raised an issue, a fabulously arcane distinction. The IFC decided it was going to treat it as a complaint and formally referred WISA's letter to the Football League on 9 July.

Both the chairman and chief executive of the League resigned subsequently and it was not until 28 August that the League's solicitor, Nick Craig, wrote to WISA setting out the League's perspective on the Milton Keynes decision.

WISA's chair, Nicole Hammond, an architect, was not satisfied, and so, according to the procedure, the IFC referred the complaint to the FA on 9 September. It reminded the FA that the authorities had agreed that complaints should be dealt with quickly, and asked for a reply within two weeks. Until last week, no reply had been received.

On 22 January, four and a half months after receiving the complaint, Coward wrote to the IFC, not to WISA. The two-page letter re-states the FA's position that, although many fans blame the governing body for the decision, the FA claims it did not decide the issue but only arranged the three-man commission, whose decision was binding. The letter repeats two sentences and contains a delicious typo: "To term it an "FA Commission" has, I believe, led to much understanding [sic] of the role played by the Football Association."

Hammond said this week – following AFC Wimbledon's 3-0 defeat by Barkingside in the London Senior Cup – that she was deeply unhappy with the response and now wanted the IFC to pursue the complaint: "It's disgusting to have waited this long on an issue of fundamental importance to football. We need to see what lessons can be learnt from the débâcle. We weren't happy with the letter from the League but at least it was clear and benefited from basic proof reading. The IFC have been very good, very positive, but the response from the FA is very disappointing indeed."

Another long delay followed a letter taken up by the IFC from the academic John Williams, the chairman of Foxes Against Racism, a group officially supported by Leicester City. He wrote to the FA on 11 April last year following a home match against Leeds United, when a large section of Leeds fans were chanting racial abuse.

Williams asked what penalties Leeds might face, and why the FA does not, like Uefa, hold clubs responsible for their fans' racism. Coward replied on 12 July, three months later, to say that the FA does not hold English clubs strictly liable, as Uefa does, but finds clubs responsible if they have not done all they can to prevent offensive behaviour.

Coward added that any rule changes must start with the FA's Disciplinary Committee, and he would put the issue to the next meeting, which was due soon. That was the last Williams heard. He asked the IFC to pursue it. Nic Coward sent a reply on 27 November. He queried whether the issue fell within the FA's remit, then said that the Disciplinary Committee had had a preliminary consideration of the matter and would look at it in more detail. No sanctions have been applied against Leeds and nothing further has been heard.

John Williams is not happy: "I'm very pleased that the IFC have pursued this issue vigorously, but it doesn't say much for the FA or the seriousness with which they take racism that we haven't had a meaningful reply or any reply at all for more than six months. It's now nearly 10 months since the match."

All of which suggests that the IFC's chances of changing football for the better are no higher than that of the Football Task Force, whose gruelling, bruising two and a half years ended in December 1999 with a majority recommendation for a strong self-regulatory body to reform football's governance and act on fans' complaints.

The Government turned that down in favour of the authorities' own proposal for an IFC, with a remit to review football's practice, rules and regulations in financial matters and relationships with fans, and publish their findings in an annual report. The Government said then that if this "light touch regulation" did not work they would look at firmer action.

But on Monday, questioned by Malcolm Clarke, the co-chairman of the Football Supporters' Federation, Caborn did not clarify how the Government will make its assessment of whether the IFC has succeeded or failed.

Now that the first skirmishes have been fought – including an agreement that the IFC cannot look at the distribution of money in football, which is the fundamental cause of the current crisis – the crunch may come next year. This report's 22 recommendations relate to improving ticket-selling systems to away fans, boosting the profile of clubs' customer charters, formalising and publishing the work of the FA's Financial Advisory Unit, which the IFC generally praised, and – no surprise – urging them to deal with complaints more promptly.

Fraser said the IFC expects action: "We have no official powers but we expect our recommendations to be implemented. If they are not and substantial time goes by, we will have to conclude that self-regulation is not working and the industry needs something firmer." They have a meeting to hear the authorities' response in April.

Now the IFC will move on into meatier matters; the game's financial crisis, the governance of clubs and "the seeming opaqueness of the FA's stand on [financial] compliance".

On current form, it can expect another thankless year. Fraser will have to battle harder to earn his fledgling organisation some public profile and respect from fans, to match the good work which his team are trying to do. He will surely have to ruffle some feathers, or at least rattle his cage.

davidconn@independent.co.uk