Steve Tongue: Why toothless watchdog may have to go walkies

The notion that there is considerable financial corruption in football is not hard to believe, but rather more difficult to prove. Sir Alan Sugar, the former Tottenham chairman, insisted in a recent rant: "Until a bent manager or agent is put away, it will continue." The less excitable Steve Gibson, of Middlesbrough, said of recent transfer negotiations in which an agent had demanded money (illegally) from both the buying and selling club: "Football has not found a way of cleansing or disciplining itself."

The Independent Football Commission, which recently celebrated the first anniversary of its launch, hopes to become part of that process. But the very manner in which it came about, detailed in Tom Bower's new book Broken Dreams (Simon & Schuster, £17.99), does not offer cause for great optimism.

New Labour, while still in opposition, had wanted an independent regulator for football to deal with matters such as bribes and bungs. The first step was the Football Task Force, which under the controversial chairmanship of David Mellor managed to alienate all the football authorities. The Task Force itself became divided, with the majority still wanting an independent body; the idea of a Football Regulation Bill was quietly dropped; and the IFC was duly proposed. Jack Cunningham MP was nominated as chairman by the Prime Minister. The intention was that he would work from the headquarters of the Football Association, which would also be paying him but, accused of lacking genuine independence, he was deposed on the basis that the Nolan Report demanded such positions should be openly advertised.

Eventually the position was given to Professor Derek Fraser, shortly to retire as the vice-chancellor of the University of Teesside, where the IFC is now based, some 250 miles from Soho Square. As well as a secretary and researchers, there are seven unpaid commissioners, all football fans, their backgrounds mainly in politics, business and finance, whose first annual report will be considered by the FA next week.

The Commission sums up its role as "to evaluate the effectiveness of football's existing self-regulatory framework and to suggest improvements". Its weakness appears to be that nobody need take any notice of those suggestions whatsoever. As one critic puts it: "They're a well-meaning, decent bunch of people, but they're entirely dependent on the goodwill of the authorities."

To the accusation of toothlessness, one of the commissioners, John Simpson, replies: "You can argue that we're toothless in theory, in the sense that we don't have the power, like the Financial Services Authority, to impose our recommendations. Any self-regulatory body is to an extent toothless. The power we have is that if our recommendations are not accepted, something else will be put in our place."

Although Kate Barker, a former deputy- governor of the Bank of England, stresses the importance of the IFC gaining the confidence of people in the game during its first year, the annual report emphasises difficulties that previous independent investigators such as Sir John Smith found common: "Co-operation has been variable. Delays in responding to requests for information have impeded progress."

The report also declares: "A popular perception remains that football is unduly mercenary and uncaring. Many supporters feel neglected."

The 22 recommendations, however, will hardly strike terror into the hearts of the game's rulers. They concern consumer issues such as complaints procedures, ticket prices being displayed more clearly and expiry dates being shown on replica shirts. They also propose that the governing bodies should "improve the perception of their image", and that the FA's commitment against racism should be publicly stated in its charter. If there are serious objections to any of the recommendations, the authorities will deserve the introduction of a bigger stick, which may, in any case, be hastened by a possible Private Member's Bill in Parliament next autumn.

In its second year, the IFC has promised to turn to some rather more contentious issues. Julian Wild, who will chair a committee on governance, says: "We'll be looking at how clubs appoint directors, for instance, and whether they're properly qualified. The FA are looking, rather belatedly some might say, at a 'fit and proper persons' rule. There's been a lot of push for that from supporters' groups who've been dismayed by events at Wimbledon and York City and others." Critics cite the case of Wimbledon's move to Milton Keynes as an example of the IFC's powerlessness, but Wild says the commission is discussing a possible rule-change to prevent similar franchising operations in future.

And what about those bungs? "We're moving on to governance, and we hope to meet Graham Bean [the FA compliance officer] and have full access to him and his team. He's looking at things like transfer fees and allegations of bungs, which have very clear governance issues. If that sort of thing is going on, and I have no idea whether it is or it isn't, we would certainly like to be looking at that."

Wild is also bullish about the IFC's role. "Although the appointment of the IFC was the preferred route of the governing bodies, it would be fair to say what they would have preferred would have been nothing at all. The governing bodies can't afford to be arrogant with their stakeholders. They need to be showing they're keeping their house in order."

For now, the commission is going for what it is fashionable to call "light-touch regulation". Any prevarication on its feather-light recommendations and a far heavier hand will be required.