PERHAPS the main question arising from Mark Sampson’s demise as coach of the England women’s team has little to do with racism, bullying or whether his behaviour was “unacceptable” and “inappropriate” in terms of safeguarding and the “boundaries between a coach and a player” back when he was in charge of Bristol Academy.

Rather, it is one of governance. The Eni Aluko affair was ugly and unfortunate, but it ultimately comes down to – at least based on the evidence that is out there – on who you believe. And, yes, you can engage in some heavy-duty mental gymnastics and maybe come to the conclusion that, yes, it’s a witch-hunt and that £80,000 really was paid to Aluko for her to simply go away and stop harassing them.

But what is harder to fathom is chief executive Martin Glenn passing the buck. He was appointed to his role in March 2015 and inherited Sampson, who had been subject to FA scrutiny because of allegations of improper behaviour shortly after being appointed in December 2013. Those allegations were compiled in a safeguarding report which concluded that he was fit to take the job.

Loading article content

But when Glenn read the report, he quickly noted the “unacceptable and inappropriate” behaviour and acted immediately to sack him.

The question is why Glenn only looked at the report two weeks ago, especially since, he says, he was made aware of it in October 2015. You would have thought as chief executive he might have taken an interest in Sampson, who happens to be his organisation’s second most visible employee after Gareth Southgate. Especially given the separate allegations of bullying and racism surrounding him. And especially since, according to Keith Boanas, the Watford Ladies coach, rumours of impropriety at Bristol had been flying around for a long time.

That’s the part which, frankly, is unacceptable. Sure, Glenn is undoubtedly a very busy man, but you would imagine he must have a minion who can read reports on his behalf and summarise them. And maybe say: “Hey boss, you really should take a look at this.”

That’s where Glenn really let the FA down badly. That’s reason alone for him to take a long, hard look at himself. And that’s before we look under the Aluko carpet and see what ugliness and mishandling hides beneath.

MANCHESTER United reported record revenues of £581 million in 2016-17, with pre-tax profits of £66m, a number which would have been nearly 50 per cent higher if they didn’t also spend £25m to service the debt loaded upon them when the Glazers took over the club 12 years ago, but that’s an old story. They remain, commercially, the gold standard not just in England, but in Europe when you consider they achieved all this without the boon of Champions League football.

It is not surprising, therefore, that Ed Woodward, the club’s executive vice-chairman, was in bullish mood when he took his quarterly call with investors on Thursday. Asked about the possibility of tech giants like Amazon or Facebook bidding on Premier League TV rights, he said: “Absolutely, I think they will enter the mix; anecdotally, there was incredibly strong interest in the last cycle… we would welcome the interest.”

It is obviously not lost on the investors that United’s tremendous leap in results was fuelled by the fact that last year was the first season of the current domestic TV deal, which featured a 70 per cent uplift over the previous three-year period. With BT and Sky struggling with a flat, if not dwindling, subscriber base few expect such a TV bonanza next time. There’s even the suggestion of some level of co-operation, if only to stave off mutually-agreed destruction.

And that’s where the techies come in. They have deep pockets. They have an interest in sport, with Amazon acquiring the UK rights to the ATP Tennis Tour and Facebook doing a deal to stream 22 Major League Soccer games in the US. And while the outlook for traditional television may be bleak, everyone seems to agree streaming is the future.

The problem though may be one of scale. It’s one thing for Amazon and Facebook to dip their toe in the water. The question is how far they are going to push out the boat. Sky and BT need football for their survival. Amazon and Facebook are already behemoths, this would be just one of many “side-projects”.

Sure, they may get involved. But don’t expect them to create the mad auction we saw last time.

BETTER call Jorge. He’s the “man who can”. Last week, Jorge Mendes facilitated Diego Costa’s move from Chelsea to Atletico Madrid for a fee of £48.5m, rising to £57.3m. The deal will go through when the transfer market reopens, but it’s worth noting just how remarkable this is.

Costa turns 29 next month, hasn’t played since June and hasn’t played well in more than a year. He has effectively been on strike back in Brazil since Antonio Conte texted him to tell him he was no longer in Chelsea’s plans. And he was on a hefty contract in West London, which means he will likely be Atletico’s highest paid player.

In these situations, you don’t expect a big fee – put differently, he becomes the second most expensive 29-year-old in history – and yet, somehow, Chelsea were able to pull this off. How? Jorge.

His company looks after Costa, but, these days, he is above all an arch-intermediary. Atletico Madrid have relied heavily upon him over the past few seasons. They owed him one. And, equally, by helping them get such a fee, he did Chelsea a big favour.

Calling him an agent is reductive at this point. Such is his network of players and managers, controlled both directly and indirectly, and such is his personal relationship with owners that few men can move pieces around the European chess board the way he can. Nowhere is this more evident than in Group G of the Champions League, where Monaco, Porto and now Besiktas (home to five Mendes guys) are squarely in his sphere of influence.

Mino Raiola might have got the attention among super agents this summer with his mega-commissions. But when it comes to sheer volume and oomph, it’s still all about Jorge.