The problem with agendas is that everyone has them. In sport, and the petty little world of Scottish football in particular, they are often worn as a badge of honour.

The problem with agendas is that everyone has them.

In sport, and the petty little world of Scottish football in particular, they are often worn as a badge of honour.

How ironic, then, that Gordon Smith's attempts to quell the paranoia surrounding supposed refereeing bias should end up with the chief executive of the Scottish FA becoming the target of a conspiratorial lashing. Or has it all been one big misunderstanding?

What is it about the university-educated, media-friendly, former professional footballer that leads critics to sharpen their pens, tongues and knives, even when he has apparently done no wrong?

For the avoidance of any doubt, let us be clear from the outset: Smith has this week been pilloried by Craig Levein, the manager of Dundee United, for "just another blunder", when, in fact, Levein's rant was based on the sole premise of one inaccurate newspaper account of the chief executive's interview to the assembled press on Monday.

When invited to comment on the spate of refereeing errors that have contributed to the kind of theories Machiavelli would have been embarrassed to promote, Smith declared: "I get a letter in every week from all 12 SPL clubs claiming that the referee has been biased".

It was a sentence nestled among an inoffensive, wandering chat and, given the theme of the conversation, it was obvious to the majority of his inquisitors that the correspondence had been made by supporters and not a frenzied bunch of chairman harbouring persecution complexes.

Had Smith intended this to be the case, it would have been journalistic negligence not to follow up that startling revelation with: "Really? Which clubs claimed which referees were biased against them and for what reasons?" Suffice to say, that line of inquiry was not pursued.

Let's indulge in the cynical undertones of the season, shall we? Can we suggest that the newspaper in question has an agenda against Smith? Or can anything be read into the thinly-disguised personality clash that exists between Smith and a former BBC punditry colleague?

Furthermore, is it significant the only dissenting public voice belongs to Levein, the man who engaged in a legal dispute with the SFA over an unpaid fine, and who many believed was overlooked for the recent Scotland vacancy on the back of his crusade against the governing body? Or would that be paranoia?

Heaven forbid that Smith should ever utter such talk.

It is understood that Peter Lawwell, the Celtic chief executive, was one of many to seek direct clarification from Smith before Tuesday's pre-match press conference. Perhaps Levein would have been advised to do the same.

The SFA communications office may have been slow off the mark with the courtesy phone-round to all SPL clubs but was it their responsibility to do so, or the offending newspaper's to clear-up its own confusion?

If Smith has a failing, it is the imprecision of his language. Too often his best intentions are undermined by the foggy construction of his points.

This latest melodrama does him no favours: already his detractors, of varying degrees of power and influence, have compiled a weight of evidence against his appointment.

His batting average is hardly admirable but not worthy of crucifixion either. Since he replaced David Taylor, the SFA have yet to attract a sponsor for the Scottish Cup, have been given short shrift by FIFA for their efforts to punish diving retrospectively and have watched proposed friendly matches against Argentina, England and now Belgium collapse.

Directly, Smith ill-advisedly defended the selection process at George Burley's unveiling and has been pilloried for suggesting Rangers supporters have been unfairly singled out for sectarian punishment in the book It's Rangers For Me.

Yesterday, Smith sought to clear the air through the broadcast media. This was another minor error.

In perpetuating this non-story, Smith has set a dangerous precedent of publicly defending himself against the inaccuracies of one newspaper.

It does little to dilute growing suspicion that his vanity and sensitivity to criticism may prove his ultimate undoing.

Essentially, Smith is a well-intentioned public figurehead with agreeable ideas but no great power within Hampden Park.

Curiously, his colleagues have hardly tripped over themselves to offer a helping hand. Agendas? You couldn't make them up . . .