Oral evidence: Sport Governance, HC 320

Oral evidence, 18 October 2017.

Witness

Eniola Aluko

Chair

Good afternoon and welcome to this session of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee as part of our ongoing inquiry into sports governance. Today we are taking evidence from Eniola Aluko, Lianne Sanderson and representatives of The Football Association, to investigate specifically allegations of racism and bullying at the FA that were brought forward by Eni Aluko. With the permission of the Committee, I am publishing a series of written statements and written evidence, which are available in paper form in the room and which will also be published on the Committee’s website. I appreciate there will be some people in the room who are not familiar with this new evidence that has been published. The one update I would like to give is that the Committee received from The Football Association a copy of Katharine Newton’s second report looking at further evidence that had been presented regarding the allegations that had been brought previously by Eni Aluko and supported by Drew Spence. We are publishing Katharine Newton’s second report today. I would like to read out the first line of the conclusion of that report, for the benefit of people who have not had a chance to see it. In that, Katharine Newton says, “I have concluded that on two separate occasions Mark Sampson made ill-judged attempts at humour, which as a matter of law were discriminatory on grounds of race within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010”. What that refers to directly is that in Katharine Newton’s opinion Mark Sampson did use the term “Ebola” when referring to Eni Aluko’s family and that he did make the comment to Drew Spence suggesting that she had been arrested four times, and that on both grounds Katharine Newton believes that the use of the language was discriminatory and a breach of the Equality Act. What I would like to do now, now that we have established that on the record and the evidence is published, is to welcome Eni Aluko to the Committee today. If I could start with questions on behalf of the Committee to ask you initially what your reaction is to Katharine Newton’s second report.

Eniola Aluko

First, I would like to say thank you for inviting me to speak to you today and to give evidence about my case. I appreciate the opportunity to speak openly and freely and I am happy to be here giving evidence. In terms of my response, I only saw the report an hour ago and so I have not had the opportunity to read everything but, as you have done, I went straight to the conclusion and saw that Katharine Newton had made a determination that both comments were made and were in breach of the Equality Act. My overwhelming emotion is just relief, because it has been a long process getting to this point. I say in my statement that I am not the architect or engineer of any of these circumstances. I have been put in this situation but I was always honest and truthful about those comments and about other comments that I have raised and about the culture of the team under Mark Sampson. I feel vindicated in that honesty and that truth. I am a human being. I feel relieved because it suggests that it was all worth it to go through that trouble to now have that vindicated.

Chair

You have had support from some of your teammates and from the PFA, but has this at times felt like a fairly lonely process where you have had to challenge The Football Association on what has been a lengthy process where you have tried to get these issues properly examined?

Eniola Aluko

Yes, I have certainly felt isolated in terms of the process. I did not want it to be as adversarial as it has become in terms of The Football Association versus Eni Aluko. I say in my statement that I have had a very good relationship with The Football Association up until two years ago, so that disappoints me. That has felt very isolating because the FA is a huge institution. I have not spoken to many individuals that I used to speak to at the FA. In terms of the support from the Professional Footballers Association, I feel I have had unwavering support and would very much like to endorse and recommend for any other players going through difficult situations in their team, the England team or the League to use the PFA as a resource, because without their support I would not be sat here. I probably would not have got the result that I got today. In terms of friends, in life you realise sometimes who your strongest friends are and some are not. That is just life and it is a life lesson. Lianne Sanderson, sat here today, has been a very good friend of mine for a long time and a teammate, and she has been through difficult situations as well. I cannot say that I have been completely isolated. I have some amazing friends and people who have supported me—my media agent Jo Tongue as well, and strong friends. It has been difficult but I have been supported in some areas.

Chair

This has been a multi-staged process, starting with the evidence you gave to the FA’s cultural review and then moving on to written complaints that you submitted to Dan Ashworth and The Football Association. We will obviously be discussing those with Dan and Rachel Brace, and we will hear from them later in the session today. There was then a moment where they decided to bring in external counsel to look at the investigation and the allegations that you brought. You decided not to take part in that investigation. Did the FA give you any advice about whether you should or was that just your own personal decision not to take part in the initial investigation?

Eniola Aluko

No, I did not receive any advice from the FA as to whether I should participate in Katharine Newton’s investigation. But I was advised by Nick Randall QC, who was the QC leading my case, that he did not feel it was wise for me to be part of that investigation at the time. He, as a leading expert in discrimination law, felt that the report would not be taken that seriously in a court of law, in an employment tribunal, which at that point I was preparing to go to. Furthermore, from my point of view, just from a human perspective, by that time another investigation had been launched by The Football Association Integrity Unit into an off-the-field role I had with a football agency, which I found was not a coincidence. I thought that it was an attempt to, again, retaliate as to the claims that I brought. I was advised that even if I were to appeal that investigation, it would be an FA process. I had lost a lot of trust and confidence at that point, because the first internal investigation had been conducted. I did not have confidence in being part of something that the FA had instructed, so I chose not to be part of that investigation.

Chair

Why did your lawyer believe that, on the process itself, Katharine Newton’s initial investigation, the results would not carry much weight in an employment tribunal?

Eniola Aluko

From my understanding, it would not have been tested before a High Court judge or before witnesses under cross-examination. The legal process would not have been what would have happened in court. He has more expertise in that, but in a nutshell that was his advice to me. But I did not feel comfortable anyway necessarily being part of another FA investigation, which I felt at that point had already had a lot of flaws in it.

Chair

I think most people would think allegations of racism and bullying within the England camp brought by a very senior international are incredibly serious. But the picture we get from the evidence you have presented to the Committee is that the FA’s arrangements were a very ad hoc process. There was a very ad hoc internal review, which Katharine Newton’s has been critical of. There was then the bringing in of an outside barrister to a process that is not particularly defined. You get the impression that there is no proper established procedure for dealing with serious issues that have been brought to the attention of the FA by senior players, or by any player.

Eniola Aluko

That is certainly the case. I could not tell you today what the whistle-blowing procedure is at The Football Association. I could not tell you what the grievance procedure is. I felt that I could go to Dan Ashworth, even before the culture review. I put it in my statement that I spoke to Dan Ashworth personally, very briefly, and said, “Dan, I am struggling. I would like to have a meeting with you about the way Mark Sampson is managing me in the team”. That meeting never materialised, but that was the extent of my grievance procedure: going to Dan Ashworth, who I felt was the line manager for Mark Sampson, somebody with authority. I asked for him to be in the room at the time of the SheBelieves Cup in America when the issue of my 100 caps was an issue. He was not in the room and subsequent to that obviously the culture review gave me an opportunity to speak on the issues I have spoken on. But had I not been asked to be part of the culture review I do not know what I would have done. It is very difficult for players who are there fundamentally to play for their country and perform to raise issues that they should not be raising. There is no structure, there are no parameters. Perhaps that suggests why it seems very ad House of Commons, because there is no process. This is what happens consistently in terms of grievances being brought and that is very much how it felt. Even after the culture review I felt that I was ignored by Dan Ashworth. He ignored my e-mail and it did not seem like a coherent process.

Chair

I know this is something you have spoken about before, but for the benefit of the Committee it is important we ask you in this forum. With regard to the concern that Drew Spence had discussed with you about the comments that were made and have now been investigated by Katharine Newton, you decided not to take part in that initial investigation. The FA suggested that you told it that Drew Spence did not want to be involved and on that basis it instructed Farrer’s and Katharine Newton not to approach Drew Spence to discuss these issues. Could you explain, from your perspective, whether you believe that is true and what you felt was the potential status of Drew Spence in that investigation, whether she would have been available if approached to be interviewed?

Eniola Aluko

From my perspective that is not true. I will say that. That is the easy answer to the question. It is an attempt by the FA to blame me for their shortcomings in their investigation; what I feel is a basic shortcoming to interview somebody who is the alleged victim of a racist statement. In terms of Drew Spence’s participation, when I wrote the culture report it was a confidential report to Dan Ashworth. At that time it was not in my mind to present evidence about racist comments. It was not in my mind to present evidence that was going to go to court. The reason I put Drew Spence’s comment in the report was that it was on video so, on everything I put in the report, I felt, “Can I prove this? Is this something that objectively I can say there is evidence for?” I think I made it very clear who Drew Spence was, short of saying her name. I was trying to suggest who it was so the FA could take the decision to speak to her. When we had the first meeting with Dan Ashworth and Rachel Brace, myself and the PFA were non-prescriptive as to how that investigation should be conducted. It is an FA investigation. I said, “It is up to you, it is not up to me to tell you who to interview and who not to interview. It is up to the FA to ask Drew whether she wants to be part of this investigation.” But I categorically did not say that Drew Spence refused to be interviewed in any of the investigations. Let’s say even if I had suggested that Drew did not want to be interviewed, is it not prudent to pick up the phone and call Drew and say, “Actually, Eni has said you do not want to be spoken to. Can I confirm that?” That is what I would have done. I have a legal background. I am not a top barrister or a top lawyer, but that is quite basic. That could have happened in the first internal investigation and certainly in Katharine Newton’s investigation. But I understand that Katharine Newton has to act on instructions and I believe that she would have been instructed that Drew Spence did not want to be interviewed, but that was not the case.

Chair

That is very clear. You were asked by the FA to put your concerns in writing, which you did in an e-mail you sent to Dan Ashworth and then the subsequent letter sent from the PFA to the FA setting out further concerns. Before Katharine Newton was brought in to investigate these, did the FA ever give you a line-by-line response to each of the allegations you brought to their attention?

Eniola Aluko

No. We asked for one repeatedly as to why certain things I had exampled in my culture report had happened. It was only until Katharine Newton wrote her report and the summary of the report—I only saw 15 pages of what I now understand is, I don’t know, a 65-page report, which in itself shows a lack of transparency—that I saw an itemised response to each of my allegations.

Chair

When The Football Association talks about their internal review, their internal process before Katharine Newton was brought in, perhaps within that internal process they failed to give you a specific response to the allegations that you brought.

Eniola Aluko

They failed to give me a response and they also were very keen to say there was no wrongdoing without looking at the video evidence, of which Dan Ashworth said in the meeting, “Oh, we probably should have looked at that”. They had not spoken to Lianne Sanderson at that point, even though I was very clear that Lianne Sanderson has also had issues in the team and has not been picked since those issues. I am sure Lianne will elaborate on that. They were dismissive straight away in that first meeting, so we did not even get to the point of talking about itemised issues because they had already dismissed the entire complaint.

Chair

You referred in your written statement to the Committee to Greg Clarke’s response to the letter. He was copied into an e-mail that was sent to the FA and he responded saying, “What has this got to do with me?” I think many of us think that was an extraordinary statement to make given the seriousness of these issues. Personally, what was your reaction when you first saw that response?

Eniola Aluko

I was astonished because by the time in November 2016 that the full complaint was sent to Greg Clarke, Martin Glenn, Dan Ashworth and Rachel Brace, I felt that sending it to the FA chairman would lead to a better process because it is the FA chairman. I thought, “Now if he looks at this, it is probably going to improve because it is serious”. But it was the opposite. I felt if this is the FA chairman disrespectfully dismissing a serious complaint then there is nowhere to go. At that point a decision was made that the only option, my last resort, was to go to the employment tribunal. I remember distinctly feeling that way. The PFA were astonished, I think, to the point that they did not even respond. I have said in my statement there is a huge question around a male player with 102 caps, Wayne Rooney. If these top players who have over 100 caps for their country were to send a complaint like that, itemised, written by a leading QC, would he respond like that? This for me is a separate issue. The issues of female players in this country, whether you are playing in the League or in an England shirt, are they taken seriously enough at all levels of The Football Association? I would suggest that e-mail says that they are not.

Chair

Just to be clear, you are saying that, as a consequence of receiving that response, that was when you decided there was no point pursuing an internal process with the FA, that you wanted to go to an employment tribunal because you had no faith in their own processes?

Eniola Aluko

Correct, yes. It made my mind up for me.

Jo Stevens

I was going to ask you about whether you thought the FA would have treated a male player in the same way, and obviously you have dealt with that already. Can I ask you about the negotiations that you had through the PFA with the FA for your commercial settlement of your complaint? Have you been paid the full amount by the FA?

Eniola Aluko

I have not, no.

Jo Stevens

What is outstanding and why is it outstanding?

Eniola Aluko

First of all, the settlement agreement was agreed in two tranches. I cannot speak for the FA but I think one of the reasons they were concerned was that I may have said something at the European Championships, so they wanted to withhold a payment until after the European Championships. I was not intending, of course, to say anything at the European Championships, because I had to focus on doing a good job with Channel 4 and moving on from the issue. The FA has claimed that I was defamatory in a tweet that I sent and on that basis they felt they were legally entitled to withhold the payment. I disagree with that. The FA was very keen for me to speak freely about the case. When the initial Daily Mail article came out I was very brief. I did not feel it was necessary to go into it. I wanted to move on. I wanted to encourage people to still support the England team despite a negative story coming out. It is only after that that a lot of misleading stories kept coming out and I felt I should speak on the case. But even at that point I asked for clarity and agreement with the FA as to what I should say. It was very keen for me to speak freely about the facts of the case. That is what I have always done. I have done two interviews: one with The Guardian and one with BBC. I have spoken factually about my views on how this case was handled and my views on Mark Sampson’s behaviour. On that basis, the FA is withdrawing or withholding some of the payment. Also, withholding it is contradictory to its initial intention for me to speak out and speak freely, to contradict accusations of it being hush money. At this point, if you are withholding payment on the basis that I have spoken out then you are suggesting that money is attached to speaking out. I am confused about that.

Jo Stevens

There is not anything in your settlement agreement that precludes you from speaking about the circumstances of your complaints? There is what is known as a gagging clause. There is no gagging clause in it?

Eniola Aluko

No, and there were never any negotiations. No one has ever said to me, “How much can we pay you to be silent?” That never happened and I would never agree something like that. All of the financial negotiations were based on loss of earnings and loss of future earnings, discussions about what I potentially would have got in an employment tribunal. In terms of the confidentiality element, obviously both parties decided it was in their best interests to not go to court and at that point there was no need to speak publicly. The public element had already been decided and there was no need to speak publicly. But had it come out, there was an agreement that once it came out publicly both parties could speak.

Jo Stevens

Are you now in a process of conciliation or mediation, of trying to resolve that non-payment of the second tranche of your settlement?

Eniola Aluko

I would not call it conciliation. I had one meeting with Martin Glenn and he effectively suggested that if I wrote a favourable statement saying that the FA is not institutionally racist, it will think about releasing that money. I felt that was bordering on blackmail

Jo Stevens

Was that said to you verbally or in writing?

Eniola Aluko

That was in a meeting and it was subsequently suggested in written correspondence with my lawyers to suggest basically, “Where is the statement?” I categorically refused to write any statement because I had already suggested that I did not—it is not for me to come up with the determination that the FA is institutionally racist. I have never said that publicly and I would never say that. My comments have always been based on what I felt were racist comments to both myself and to Drew Spence. That is the extent of my comments and how the FA handled the evidence around those comments. For Martin Glenn to effectively suggest that I should say that the FA is not institutionally racist in order to get a payment that they already contractually agreed to is, again, a suggestion that the case has been handled appallingly.

Jo Stevens

Do you think it would be fair to describe that as potentially trying to blackmail you?

Eniola Aluko

I do not know what the legal definition of blackmail is, but I felt I was being asked to do something that I would not have ordinarily done in exchange for a payment that was already agreed.

Chair

Eni, I know one or two colleagues want to come in on this. I do not know if you could do this now—this would be great—but could you let us have the date of that correspondence from the FA to your lawyers, and would you be happy for us to have a copy?

Eniola Aluko

It can be sent to you, yes. It is not in any of my appendixes.

Chair

But if you and your lawyers would be happy to give us a copy of that correspondence from the FA, it would be helpful to us.

Eniola Aluko

I can take advice.

Julian Knight

This favourable statement that the FA has asked you to sign in order to basically release the rest of the money that they have agreed to pay you, how long was this statement? Did they show you a copy of it?

Eniola Aluko

No, it was more of a suggestion of what I could do in order to draw a line under that issue of the second tranche of payment not being released. I had a meeting in good faith with Martin Glenn. I spoke honestly and said, “Look, it is not for me to come to a determination as to whether the FA is institutionally racist”, and I have said it in my statement that I am very careful not to make sweeping generalisations about The Football Association. My issues with The Football Association are limited to certain individuals, namely Dan Ashworth, Greg Clarke, Martin Glenn, Rachel Brace, and people who handled—and Robert Sullivan, who I know has been responsible for leaking documents to the media. It is not a view of the entire Football Association. I have had great relations with The Football Association in the past. They gave me my first exposure to an in-house legal team, so I am very careful to divide both issues and I said all this to Martin Glenn. I suppose it was not enough at that time and even subsequent to that they felt that I should do more and write a statement.

Julian Knight

Was this statement supposed to be in the form, effectively, of an interview that you were going to give out to the press, or did they want you to take to Twitter or Facebook? How was this supposed to come across?

Eniola Aluko

It is interesting that you say that because I did feel—because of the behaviour and actions of people like Robert Sullivan who had leaked an unpublished part of Katharine Newton’s report that I have never seen—that, had I written a statement, it would find its way to the press. That is one of the reasons that I felt that it would have been inappropriate to do so.

Julian Knight

They wanted you to supply a statement for something internal, which you then thought would make it into the press.

Eniola Aluko

That is what I believed.

Julian Knight

It was almost a reference. The FA effectively asked you—so often it happens with tribunals—for a reference. It is usually the other way around, but the FA asked you for a reference for their good conduct?

Eniola Aluko

They were suggesting that, yes. The key point is they were suggesting it in attachment to releasing the second tranche of the money.

Julian Knight

You said earlier that you thought the other tranche was also withheld—sorry, that they gave you this money in the first place and that part of it was also to secure your “good behaviour” when you are on Channel 4 doing the Euro coverage. Is that what you felt? What was said that gave you that idea?

Eniola Aluko

Again, I cannot speak for the FA in terms of why they suggested the two tranches should be paid separately but I would assume that they did not believe that I would keep my mouth shut at the Euros and could have said something to Channel 4 or could have said something on air. That is why I believe it, but I was comfortable with agreeing it because that was not in my mind at all. It was in my mind to support the team and do a good job for Channel 4. It was not in my mind to talk about what has been a quite stressful case.

Julian Knight

When you said you were comfortable agreeing it, that says to me that they said to you, “This is on the proviso that when you do your TV coverage later this year, you will stay quiet on this issue”—a non-disclosure.

Eniola Aluko

They did not need to say that because I would never have done that anyway. I would never have used that platform to talk about this case. It was not necessary for them to say that, and they did not say that. I can only tell you how the settlement agreement works out: one payment was before the European Championships and the other was after, on the basis that—I feel—they felt there was a risk that I could say something at the European Championships.

Julian Knight

Can I read something to you? You have read it before, “I have no idea why you are sending me this. Perhaps you can enlighten me”. That is obviously the e-mail in response from Mr Clarke, the FA chairman, when you raised the concerns with him directly in an e-mail. It is something that really pulled me up short when reading the evidence to do with this hearing—it was absolutely a red light. For you looking at this now, and how you felt at that particular time as an employee, effectively, is Mr Clarke guilty of bullying you through that e-mail?

Eniola Aluko

I have not had a chance to think about that. I do not know if I would go that far, but I would say that it is an incredibly dismissive attitude. It is disrespectful to the seriousness of the complaint. It is disappointing because at the time I felt it would get better the higher up the chain it went. But it said to me that it gets worse, it potentially could get worse. The overwhelming question now, sat in front of you, is: would that happen to a male player with 102 caps for their country after 11 years of playing? I do not think it would.

Julian Knight

Did you think your career was completely over at that point when you got that e-mail from Mr Clarke? Did you think that was it?

Eniola Aluko

No, I would not say so. My playing career with England was not something that I was actively seeking to get back into. I wanted to deal with the issue as it was and at the time it was imminent that I would have to go to an employment tribunal in order for it to be dealt with independently and fairly.

Julian Knight

If this report that we have received today, which has been handed to the Committee, had been the original findings and processes followed during that report and people were spoken to rather than it just being taken on the nod that they did not want to speak, do you think that a degree of justice would have been done in that regard? Do you think that would have satisfied you at that point, if the second report had effectively been done earlier?

Eniola Aluko

Sorry, what was the question?

Julian Knight

If the same processes to get to the report that we have today—the second report findings—had been followed with regard to those individuals who were spoken to, would that, in your mind, have been a satisfactory outcome initially? Would you have gone, “Okay, I think here something is being done positively”?

Eniola Aluko

Yes. Katharine Newton’s second investigation in terms of the difference between the first investigation is that she spoke to Drew Spence, she spoke to me and she spoke to other witnesses who have not been named but I assume they are players. It is not difficult. Had that been done six or eight months ago, whenever it was, we would not be sat here. I respect Katharine Newton’s findings. She had the opportunity to see new evidence; when I say “new evidence”, I mean evidence that had not been seen before but that has always been available to The Football Association. We wrote in November 2016 that there was evidence that a comment had been made to Drew Spence. We wrote in November 2016 that there was evidence that Mark Sampson made a comment about Ebola in my family. That was there in November 2016. The Football Association could have asked for that evidence at that time; they chose not to. I do not know why certain things were not followed up, but certainly now they have been followed up and we know what the finding is, and I am pleased with the findings.

Ian C. Lucas

I am interested in why the settlement with the FA was in two tranches. Was that at the FA’s request?

Eniola Aluko

It would have been part of a negotiation between the—

Ian C. Lucas

But usually, in my experience, it is a case of once and for all there is a settlement of the arrangement. Do you know why, in this case, the payment was to be in two tranches?

Eniola Aluko

I think it was because they felt there was a risk that I could potentially say something at the European Championships.

Ian C. Lucas

Can I confirm, therefore, it was at the FA’s request that it was in two tranches?

Eniola Aluko

It certainly was not something I requested.

Ian C. Lucas

So as to keep you quiet?

Eniola Aluko

I cannot speak for the FA. That is a question you would have to ask the FA. My motivation behind the settlement agreement was to effectively settle on—have a financial settlement that was based on loss of future earnings. I felt that I would never play under Mark Sampson again and I felt that my position in the team as a result of many things that happened was untenable, which we have seen. I have not played for England since April 2016

Ian C. Lucas

But you would have preferred a once-and-for-all settlement?

Eniola Aluko

It certainly would have been easier, yes.

Ian C. Lucas

The second tranche remains outstanding. The second tranche has not been paid yet?

Eniola Aluko

The second tranche has not been paid yet, that is correct.

Ian C. Lucas

So it has not worked in terms of keeping you quiet, has it?

Eniola Aluko

My point is there was never an attempt to keep me quiet from my perspective. There was never an offer. Nobody ever said to me, “How much money can we pay you to keep you quiet?” That was never the conversation. The conversation about money was around loss of future earnings that I would have ordinarily achieved at an employment tribunal on a successful case, based on the evidence. People need to be careful not to mix the money and the confidentiality element. You can sign a confidentiality settlement for £1 if two parties agree to not speak publicly if you are not going to court. It is an out-of-court settlement. But in terms of the second tranche, again, it is not something I requested.

Christian Matheson

Some of the instances that you refer to in your statement are absolutely clear racist comments: the Ebola comment that we talked about and the arrest comments. You also complained about the replay analysis incident when Lee Kendall said, “Yes, but she is lazy as” and then, “Get stuffed, Eni”, or words to that effect. You seemed to respond particularly badly to that. Can you explain what had upset you so much about the commentary on the replay analysis?

Eniola Aluko

The comments—it is not the first time somebody would have sworn at me. The comments are not necessarily that offensive. It was more—well, they are offensive and they were inflammatory.

Christian Matheson

The reason I ask is that I can imagine that in training there will be criticism from the training staff from time to time or you will hear swearing or encouragement.

Eniola Aluko

What I found inappropriate about that incident was the fact that, first, I was in the middle of a game. It was made during the game and from my perspective the job of a coach is to give instructions to players during the game. It is not to start gossiping about players and making inflammatory statements based on no objectivity at all. I felt that was inappropriate. I was sat at home, ironically watching the game to try to improve, to watch what I was doing, and I heard this statement, which was accessible to 23 players. Again, I felt that was inappropriate. I also listened to them speaking on the microphones throughout that game. Inflammatory statements were not made about any other player in the team during that game. Let’s even say a coach uses bad language a lot. If he used bad language about many players, that is just the coach, that is the way he speaks, but I did not understand why on that particular game bad language was only used about me. At the time I had scored six goals in six games for England, so it was not based on anything objective.

Christian Matheson

But you scored in that game and had an assist.

Eniola Aluko

And I scored in that game and an assist, so it would have been quite nice to hear quite nice comments about my goal and my assist, but sometimes you do not get praise either. But these are all things I felt were inappropriate, that those comments were only made about me in that game.

Christian Matheson

Was there a feeling that perhaps those attitudes from those members of the training staff, the coaching staff, had derived from the chief coach, Mr Sampson, and that was why they had the views?

Eniola Aluko

This incident happened one month into Mark Sampson’s tenure and up until that point I had scored six goals in six matches so I was in good form. I did feel that there was a preconceived negative perception of me coming into the job because it was such a strong view to have from Lee Kendall, who also happens to be the person that spoke to me in a fake Caribbean accent. I felt it was a very strong view to have one month into the job, with the background of me being in good form at the time. I felt that those preconceived ideas of me being lazy would have been something that they came into the job with. When I asked Mark Sampson and said, “Look, I think this is a little bit inappropriate, what has happened”, he then tried to almost defend Lee Kendall by saying, “Well, sometimes we share information among the team and that could have led to him making that comment”, which did not give me comfort. It made me more worried that if such strong views are coming out of a staff member it means that it is being almost encouraged, this conversation. It is almost like a staffroom conversation that comes out as a comment on replay analysis. That is why I felt that it was inappropriate and unwarranted.

Christian Matheson

You just mentioned there the next thing I was going to ask about, which was the allegation I first read in newspapers this morning—I did not read it in your initial evidence—that one of the members of the playing staff, or at least one of them, talked to you in a fake Caribbean accent.

Eniola Aluko

That was Lee Kendall.

Christian Matheson

Mr Kendall. What was the context of him doing that?

Eniola Aluko

I suppose it was an attempt to endear himself to me. I do not think he meant it maliciously and certainly he may not have been aware of how annoying it got. But if you can imagine, he is Welsh. For instance, if I constantly spoke to him in a Scottish accent, at some point he is going to say to me, “Eni, I am Welsh”. After a while that is how it felt to me because I am not Caribbean, I am of African descent, and it was also behaviour that differentiated me from other players. It was not something that I necessarily found offensive, but I thought it was very ignorant and another example of an ignorant mind-set and behaviour towards me.

Christian Matheson

If I am shaking my head, it is not at you. Why did you not put that in your statements, because it sounds to me fairly prima facie?

Eniola Aluko

In my first culture review?

Christian Matheson

Yes.

Eniola Aluko

I was very careful with my culture review and, with a legal background, I suppose, I just have a mind for evidence. I was very careful not to basically make statements that could not be proven. At the time I was writing the culture review I was not in the mind of evidence that is going to be submitted to a court of law. I was giving examples to Dan Ashworth of things that I had raised in a phone call with Owen Eastwood, their external consultant. I did make it very clear that my report was non-exhaustive. It was a non-exhaustive list, which means other things had happened by the way. The fake Caribbean accent is not something I can prove. It was not on video, it was not something that I can necessarily prove. I did not necessarily want to start asking players, “Oh, do you remember ever hearing this or that?” It has been dismissed by Mark Sampson as something there is no evidence for. I knew that would be the case. The same goes for the Ebola comment. One of the reasons I did not put it in my culture review is that, at the time, I did not feel it could be proven. I did not know there was evidence. It was only later on that I went back to the text messages with Drew Spence that I saw that I had said it to her, almost to comfort her and say, “Look, Drew, it is not just you it has happened to. It has happened to me as well”.

Chair

I just wanted to confirm—following the previous question I asked you about when your lawyers received the e-mail from The Football Association you referred to earlier about you making a favourable statement about the FA in return for the second payment—that your lawyers have confirmed to the Committee Clerks that that was sent on 22 September this year.

Eniola Aluko

It was quite recent, yes.

Brendan O'Hara

Going back to the initial investigation on this culture review, why do you think you were approached to take part in that? Who approached you and what was your understanding of the parameters and the remit of what you had been asked to take part in?

Eniola Aluko

The e-mail from Tom Nichols from the FA is in my appendix—it is the 6 May 2016 letter—and effectively they were asking me to be part of a culture report as an “iconic England player”. They felt I could talk about my experience as an England player, being in the team for a long time. The remit was to talk about my experience. It is in the letter, in the appendix.

Brendan O'Hara

What guarantees, if any, were you given about issues of confidentiality?

Eniola Aluko

There aren’t any in the letter, but certainly when I spoke to Owen Eastwood on the phone I did ask him and say, “How is this going to work? Is it that my name will be released? How does it work?” He said, “No, it is only if you want your name to be in next to the quotes that I will give that back to Dan Ashworth”. But he assured me that it was a confidential, anonymous report at the time.

Brendan O'Hara

Your participation in this report was predicated on the idea that what you were saying was how you had been treated, what your honest assessment was, but that you would not be exposed as being the source of this information?

Eniola Aluko

I was assured that it would be confidential, which made me comfortable to speak freely about the experiences that I had not spoken about before. I had alerted Dan Ashworth to the fact that I was a little bit concerned, but we did not go into detail. This would have been the first time I was raising quite serious issues that had happened to me that I had suppressed for quite a long time. The comfort I got was, “Don’t worry, this is confidential, this is anonymous”.

Brendan O'Hara

When did you realise that your anonymity had been compromised?

Eniola Aluko

To this day I do not know whether my anonymity had been compromised. No evidence has ever been provided to refute that, but Dan Ashworth has said that my participation in the culture review had nothing to do with being dropped two weeks ago. But it is my suggestion and my concern that the two are linked. It is a situation where I think Mark Sampson was aware that I was part of a culture review and could have been aware. With past issues of me bringing up the replay analysis incident, he would have felt or may have felt, “She is going to say something”. It is that nudge-and-wink situation of, “Get rid of her before she says anything or quickly after”. Dan Ashworth was aware that I had concerns. I told him in America, “I would like to meet you when we get back to London”. That never materialised. So he was aware even before the culture report that I was having issues with Mark Sampson. The culture report came afterwards. I don’t know whether my conversation with Owen Eastwood was shared. I don’t know but I don’t think it is a coincidence.

Brendan O'Hara

Do you know from memory how soon after you had the conversation, which you believed to be confidential, things began to change so dramatically for you as part of the England setup?

Eniola Aluko

It is in the summary timeline in appendix 7, but I had a telephone conversation with Owen Eastwood on 10 May and Mark Sampson visited me at Cobham to drop me from the England squad on 23 May.

Chair

If I could clarify for the Committee, because of the questions that Brendan O’Hara has rightly raised, that I asked the FA if I could see a copy of the culture review document presentation that was prepared, which is a confidential document, and the FA did consent to that. I am not in a position to know what other conversations may have been had around the document but certainly there is nothing attributable to you in the document, the presentation itself.

Eniola Aluko

Okay.

Giles Watling

Since all this became public—and, Eni, thank you very much for appearing today—has the FA contacted you at all directly to tell you of any changes they have made or are making in the player relation process?

Eniola Aluko

No. I have not spoken to anybody from the FA about any change in process or any change in grievance procedures or whistle-blowing procedures. The only conversation I have had is with Martin Glenn in the meeting I have already referred to.

Giles Watling

There is no attempt, as far as you are concerned, at mending any fences, building bridges with you, to communicate to you?

Eniola Aluko

No, quite the contrary. Since The Daily Mail article was released on 7 August, I do feel that the FA’s sole agenda has been to protect its own reputation while making insinuations that I am lying, while making insinuations that I influenced Drew Spence or influenced their investigation, while leaking reports to media journalists about things I had not even had the opportunity to see. No, the feeling has not been about building a bridge or even having any sort of duty of care towards me. I am still a centrally contracted England player and that has compounded the isolation I felt. I do think it has become incredibly adversarial and did not need to.

Giles Watling

From your point of view you think the FA is behaving in a defensive manner?

Eniola Aluko

Very defensive and if something else were to happen with another player tomorrow that would be a source of concern. Does your reputation have to be dragged through the mud for the truth to come out? Do I have to be sat—although I am grateful for being here, does it have to come to this for me to speak in front of you today for the truth to come out? I do not think it does and it has got to this point because there have been so many misleading things said. There has been an agenda to protect Mark Sampson in the first instance and an agenda to protect the FA’s reputation.

Jo Stevens

Mark Sampson was sacked on 20 September and we have just heard that The Football Association asked you to sign a statement saying that they were not institutionally racist via your lawyers on the—

Eniola Aluko

No, sorry, I have to correct that. The FA did not ask me to sign a statement. No statement was ever drawn up.

Jo Stevens

Sorry. They asked you to make a statement.

Eniola Aluko

They suggested that, yes, I write a statement.

Jo Stevens

They did that on 22 September. When was your second payment due under your settlement agreement?

Eniola Aluko

31 August.

Paul Farrelly

Brendan has covered most of the questions I wanted to ask about the Ashworth review, and we can ask him later on about what he may or may not have said. It is important that the FA later on are very open about that so as to dispel any future concerns that people will possibly rightly have about co-operating with any reviews or inquiries. Why on earth should they, given what we have heard? Can I ask about your settlement? If the second part is not paid, you will presumably take legal action to recover it.

Eniola Aluko

I have not even thought about that.

Paul Farrelly

The settlement covered loss of earnings?

Eniola Aluko

Yes, loss of future earnings.

Paul Farrelly

When you were negotiating that, were you still available, if picked, for selection for England?

Eniola Aluko

I have been available for selection since May 2016, yes.

Paul Farrelly

You still are?

Eniola Aluko

But I have not been selected.

Paul Farrelly

If it is covering loss of future earnings and you are a good player, you are still available for selection, the settlement is rather bizarre, isn’t it, because it is recognising they are not going to pick you in the future?

Eniola Aluko

Perhaps, yes. There was a projection—the settlement was done and agreed between, I believe, April 2016 and June 2016. At that point I had not been picked for a year so it was quite easy to project into the future as to how it was going to go.

Paul Farrelly

You clearly said you are still available for selection?

Eniola Aluko

I have not retired from the England team. If I was selected, a lot of discussions would have to happen but I am still a centrally contracted player. I am still available for selection and I have been available for selection. It has been Mark Sampson’s prerogative to pick me or not pick me. Lots of players are not picked. That has not ever been my issue. Selection has never been my issue. My issue has been how I have been treated when I was in the team. Yes, I am still available for selection but we were able to project that Mark Sampson’s agreement or contract ended in 2019, so to that extent I believed I was not going to be picked for another two years under Mark Sampson.

Paul Farrelly

But he is no longer there so—

Eniola Aluko

I was not to know that back when I—

Paul Farrelly

You have made your position very clear to the new manager?

Eniola Aluko

It became a self-fulfilling prophecy because I knew that I was not going to be picked from May 2016 and I have not been. That in itself says everything about the process of grievances. Why would any player come forward with any issue if effectively she has seen a player with 102 caps not playing for England ever again after they have raised issues about the manager?

Chair

It is worth saying for the record that you were awarded the Golden Boot for your own goal-scoring for Chelsea after you were dropped from the England squad. Is that correct?

Eniola Aluko

Correct, yes.

Chair

Is it usual for the Golden Boot winner not to be in the England squad?

Eniola Aluko

I do not think so. It might be worth researching, but I do not know many players who win the—let’s say, hypothetically, would Harry Kane be not picked if he won the Golden Boot? I do not think so.

Chair

This may be a challenge for people in the room. I had a quick check just to see whether I could find a case in the Premier League era of an Englishman winning the Golden Boot and not playing for England that year and I could not find a single—

Eniola Aluko

You did not find one?

Chair

Kevin Phillips did that year, as did Dion Dublin, and there were one or two others who just clipped the bar without winning the Golden Boot. If anyone can prove otherwise it would be interesting to see. But the point has been made that it is a rare thing.

Eniola Aluko

That was Mark Sampson’s prerogative, but it is important, jokes aside, to say that I won the Golden Boot in September 2016. By that time we were six months into discussions about this case. That is more important than saying, “Why did the manager not pick me?” Obviously I was naturally disappointed, but it is more important to say, on the timing of why I was not picked at that specific time, even winning the Golden Boot was not enough.

Brendan O'Hara

You don’t have any Scottish connection, do you?

Eniola Aluko

I don’t know. I have been to Scotland a few times. My brother used to play for Rangers, so I quite like Scotland.

Brendan O'Hara

It was worth a try.

Chair

Eni Aluko, we are extremely grateful to you for appearing in front of the Committee today and for the care and trouble you have taken in preparing your written evidence to the Committee, for bringing these incredibly important matters to our attention and assisting us with our sports governance review. On behalf of the Committee, thank you very much.

Eniola Aluko

Thank you. I would like to say that one of the core purposes of me coming today was so that I could speak to enact some changes around grievance procedures, around complaints procedures, and hopefully speak to a change for more independence and less conflict of interest in that area. Obviously I have given my experiences, but that was already something that has been well documented, so I would hope that there are some changes in that area. I would encourage players, if they do have any issues, to speak to the PFA, who have been incredibly supportive of me. I want to make that clear, that the purpose of this was for me to help, hopefully, with those changes moving forward. Examination of witness

Witness

Lianne Sanderson

Chair

Lianne Sanderson, thank you very much for appearing once again in front of the Committee. The last time was by video-link from New York, so it is much better to have you in person in the room with us. I am grateful again for your assistance with this inquiry. It is another very important matter on issues that the Committee takes very seriously. Do you concur with Eni Aluko’s statement that there is no established grievance procedure for England players, no sense of who they should go to with a problem or what action will be taken as a consequence of raising those concerns?

Lianne Sanderson

Yes. First, I would like to reiterate what Eni Aluko said. Thank you for having us today. It is not something that we ever imagined would happen. But thankfully you guys have been willing to listen to us so we cannot thank you enough for that. Yes, I definitely concur with what Eni Aluko said. For myself, something happened in 2015 to myself where I raised it with Mark and have not been selected since. We can go into that a bit later. But I definitely think there needs to be something in place so that this does not happen to more players in the future.

Chair

Have other members of the England squad spoken to you about their concerns as a consequence of the attention? Some it has fallen on Eni’s concerns and on concerns you have raised. Have other players been speaking about this now? Are there other people who may come forward as a consequence of the consideration these issues have had now?

Lianne Sanderson

I think so, but I personally think it is more so for older players—we are talking from about 15 years ago—who have certainly raised a few things. I have always said, and I have maintained this stance, that as long as Mark was in place, players were never going to speak. It has kind of always been that way. As long as you are there, you are not going to speak out because, as you have seen with what has happened to Eni and what has happened to me, if you speak out about something that has happened, this is what happens to you and you do not play for your country again. Those consequences are quite harsh and I do not blame the girls for not being willing to say anything, because it is something that is difficult to do. It is not easy being here. It is not easy being called a liar. It is not easy being told, “Why are you standing by somebody?” but in this whole process I was always going to stand by Eni because I knew she was telling the truth and that has been confirmed today. For me to be here, I have flown from New York to be here, but this is important for me to be here, because this is something that is very serious and should be taken seriously.

Chair

Do you feel that the culture within the England camp changed when Mark Sampson became manager?

Lianne Sanderson

For me, personally, I had a fantastic time under Mark for the first year. So for myself, it was great. I noticed with Eni—me and Eni are best friends—certain things that were happening to her that she would express to me, like the video analysis. Just to reiterate, the video analysis is usually mute. It is not something where there are any vocals. It is usually completely mute. You do not even hear the coaches; you do not even hear the wind. It is completely mute. Like I said, I think there needs to be something in place that we can have going forward, for players to be able to speak.

Chair

It has been reported that BAME players across the different England squads have raised concerns about the culture within the team, the identity relationship they have with the England setup. Even if they are not tied to specific allegations, do you think there are widespread concerns about the level of cultural identity people have playing for England?

Lianne Sanderson

It is an interesting question. You will have to ask a lot of the players that are there. I have not been there since 2015 so I could not answer that question with what is happening among the team now, but from my interpretation of what I experienced when I was there, my first year under Mark was fantastic. Then after I scored the winning goal in the Cyprus Cup final, that is when my England career started going in a weird direction. As Eni mentioned before, she got the Golden Boot. You do not see that player not being selected for England. For myself, I felt like I was doing well for England. Even until this day, I have never been told I am not good enough to play for England. It is up to the coach to make the decisions. We are professional footballers. Sometimes your coach is going to like you, sometimes the coach is not, and that is fine. But if we felt like it was something that was down to playing, then we would not be sitting here right now. Like I said, my first year under Mark was fantastic but then things started to change. As I mentioned before, my career went down a different path. In China 2015—after the World Cup we went to China, which is where a lot of this stuff happened—coincidentally, they forgot about my 50th cap. For the 50th cap, this is something that you get a commemorative jersey for and a video message from home; it is something that is supposed to be honoured and celebrated. This was a game I was starting in, so I was really excited to get that message from home. I knew it was going to be my 50th cap and when I was sitting in a room, similar to the one we are sitting in now, with my teammates, I could not wait for Mark to say something nice about me. I had played for England for four years and I thought I would never play for England again, so to get my 50th cap was going to be the most amazing memory, but for me now it is something I want to forget. I gave the jersey to my mum and dad, but at the same time it is something that did not make me feel good because I played in the game. It did not make me feel good on the way to the game, but I did not tell the girls that I had been forgotten about because this had never happened before. No other player had been forgotten about on their 50th game. At the same time, they remembered another player’s 99th game, on that day. They were tweeting about it being the 99th game and I am thinking, “What did I do?” That was not a nice feeling. I waited until after the game. I spoke to Mark and I was very calm. I was obviously upset because this is something that means a lot to me, and first he asked me if I was sure it was my 50th cap. Secondly, he tried to blame somebody else, the treasurer or something. Then, when he asked me if I was sure, I said, “Mark, you stand up there in our meetings and you say how important it is to play for England. I could tell you every goal I have scored, I could tell you every minute I have played for England, because it means so much to me. For you to question if it is my 50th cap—” I found that quite insulting, because I love playing for England and it is an amazing honour for anybody to play for England. So they forgot about my 50th cap. I have not been selected since. Furthermore, following on from that I had spoken to Mark on the phone. I was living in Cyprus at the time because that is where I play in the off-season, in the Champions League. I live in America and play in America, if you are not aware of that. He told me, “We are only bringing four strikers to this camp; we don’t need you; we’re playing against a team we are already going to beat”. I said, “Okay, no problem”. The squad came out and there were eight strikers on the list. I was thinking, “But you just told me there were only four strikers going to be there”. Then going on, going forward, I noticed that the girls were meeting up, going to activity weeks and I was not part of these activity weeks. I am looking on social media and I am thinking, “This is a bit weird”. This might all sound trivial, but at the same time, for me, I just felt that because I had said to Mark about my 50th cap being forgotten—we were still in China for a good week after that and no one from the FA could even look me in the eye. I am a pretty understanding person. I would accept an apology if someone said sorry, but I did not get an apology until about five days later, which was a text message from somebody in the FA who was there. I mean, can you not come and knock on my door and find out how I am doing? Going on from what you were saying about where to go, where do I go when I am in China, when they forget about me? I don’t want that to be a team problem, but then, as I said, I have not been selected since. Then I was part of the long squad in February 2016, last year, to go to the SheBelieves Cup, and then I found out on Twitter, from journalists, that I was not selected. Following on from that 50th-cap incident, I have not been selected. For me, managers can pick whoever they want. Some fans might like me; some fans might not. I could be someone’s best player; I could be someone’s worst player. That is part of the job. But, I cannot believe that from that moment in China when they forgot about me and I said, “I think it is really bad” and I was obviously crying—I was not angry—I have not been selected for England since. Since then I have been injured. I unfortunately tore my ischial meniscus last year. I have not had one phone call from the doctor, I have had not one phone call from the coach, and I played for England for a good period of time. I was part of the 2015 squad; we won the bronze medal. I won the penalty in that game. These are moments that you want to celebrate. Also, you need help when you are injured and I have had absolutely no contact from them at all. Just to give you a back-story of what happened to me, that is what happened.

Chair

From your point of view, as soon as you raised that issue because you were upset about it, it was almost like you were cut out.

Lianne Sanderson

Yes. I think from that moment, I was forced out. They said, “We are not selecting you because we are going to bring in only four strikers”, but they brought in eight. They were going on team activities. When I reached out to the team psychologist at the time, Adam Streeter, to find out why I was not invited to these team activities, he was told I was not able to make it. Then all these things started ticking off in my head. I am thinking, “Well, I didn’t say I could not make it”, so I am thinking, “Okay, this does not make sense to me here”, and when I found out on Twitter I was not selected, then I just knew that was it.

Chair

You said you had a text message from the FA apologising for what had happened. Who was that from? Do you remember?

Lianne Sanderson

Catherine Stewart. I responded to her by saying that I appreciated her apologising but it was not acceptable. I think that because I was upset about it and because I did not just turn around and say, “Oh, that’s fine. You forgot about my 50th cap. It has never happened to anyone before, but please do it again”—that is not how I operate. I am a respectful person and I expect to be respected in return. I am not a person who holds grudges. Everyone makes mistakes. I understand that, but from that moment on I feel like they pushed and forced me out. How do you go from being one of the most high-profile players on the team to then being taken out of the team completely, without even a phone call to say why. Even to this day, yes, I am injured, but I have never had a phone call to say why. I have never been told, “Lianne, you are not good enough to play for England anymore”. I might not agree with it, but I will accept it.

Chair

You have never had someone say, “This is the reason you are not being picked”?

Lianne Sanderson

No. Literally since they forgot about my 50th cap, I have not been selected.

Simon Hart

Are there other colleagues who you are close to who would love to have spoken out, who have had similar distressing experiences but feel that they do not want to do anything because they have seen the problems that might have been generated? Do you think you are here with Eni to speak for a wider group of people who are urging you on, watching this this afternoon?

Lianne Sanderson

Somewhat, but I also think that these particular incidents only happened to myself and Eni particularly. Yes, there are other grievances, but it was not like this is going on to everybody in the team. That is why it has been such a bitter pill to swallow, so to speak, because we could see certain things happening only to certain members of the team. For some players, I am sure they love being there—I am sure it is a most amazing experience—but to me, at this moment in time, I have not heard anything from most of the members on the team. I don’t really have friendships on the team anymore, because I do not feel I can be friends with people who do not support what we are doing. You do not have to take sides, but you could at least just reach out to somebody. As Eni’s friend, I have seen what she has been through and it has been a torrid time for her. I am happy I could be there for her, but it has not been easy for anybody.

Simon Hart

Do you think the way in which complaints are handled, and they could be on the very serious end of the scale or less serious—I hope I am not putting words in your mouth—is consistent, or are you seeing complaints being dealt with perfectly reasonably in some circumstances but unreasonably in others?

Lianne Sanderson

I think it is inconsistent, because the behaviour in itself, initially, is a problem. The way they treated Eni in the first place was different from how they treated a lot of other players on team. It is pretty obvious, but at the same time it is that mentality of, “Well, it’s not happening to me so I won’t say anything”. It is not as if I think everybody has been treated like this on the team. That is not the case at all.

Simon Hart

You have been listening to the evidence this afternoon and following the whole saga right from the beginning. Do you detect, from the FA, that the commitments to improve the situation are a result of a real desire to improve the situation or because they have been dragged rather unwillingly to this position, under a degree of public scrutiny, and that the cultural attitude has not really changed but the presentational attitude may have done?

Lianne Sanderson

I think you are right. That is exactly why, when they asked me to speak to Katharine Newton, I said, “I am not going to speak to her”, because I had already taken part in the internal investigation of Rachel Brace and they contacted me the day after they had already told Eni that they had come to the conclusion that there was no wrongdoing on Mark Sampson’s part. How can you then ask somebody the next day about something you have already told somebody about? So I spoke to Rachel Brace. I expressed to her what I have expressed to you today. I brought up some pretty not-so-great things. It was the day before my operation so it was the last thing I wanted to be doing, remembering things that do not make me feel good, but it was necessary. Then I did not hear from her for literally about five or six months. When I brought up that stuff and she asked would I be willing to speak to Mark Sampson, I said, “Yes, of course I want to speak to my national team manager”. If your national team manager calls, you speak to them. Like I said, I am an understanding person and I wanted to play for England again, but then I did not hear from her for about five or six months. Then she e-mailed me, asking me if I would be part of the inquiry with Katharine Newton and I said, “No, I don’t feel like I want to, because I don’t think they are trying to get to the truth of it”. I felt that they were just ticking a box to say, “Okay, Lianne’s a witness, let’s speak to her now and we will be done with it”. But I did not feel like they were getting to do an inquiry and an investigation to get to the fair truth, hence the fact the new report has come out today and that is the truth of what happened. The first report was not the truth, because they did not interview me; they did not interview people who were in the room; they did not interview anybody there. You could have got anybody to do the inquiry at the beginning.

Brendan O'Hara

Could you tell us, for the record, a bit of background. You left the England setup in 2010, initially. What were the circumstances that led to that?

Lianne Sanderson

A similar situation really. This goes back to what we were talking about earlier about there being nobody to speak to when you have grievances. It is a completely different situation because I just felt like I was being—the way that Mark treated Eni, I felt Hope Powell was treating me like that, if that makes sense. That is why I left the team at that time. This time I did not leave the team. I did not get selected and it was completely different because under Mark I felt I was succeeding under him and I felt, at the beginning, he gave me the necessary tools to be successful in that environment. But then it was almost like when I got too much popularity and I was doing too well, that is when they started taking me out of the team. You know, as a player, when you are not good enough, you are not ready. You know when you should not be playing. That is the manager’s decision. But this is just inconsistent, the behaviour of what they have.

Brendan O'Hara

Are you saying that there are similarities between how you were treated in 2010 and subsequently in 2015? Could you expand on that for me?

Lianne Sanderson

My situations with Hope Powell and Mark Sampson are completely different. Mark and I had a good relationship, I would say, at the beginning, if that makes sense. But I would say the way Eni was treated from minute one was very similar to how I felt I was treated before. In that situation, I live in America, I play in America, and I felt like that was the best place for me to go. I do not like the attention surrounding a lot of stuff. I just like things to be done properly. It is not a situation of, “Here we go again, Lianne’s here”. I am here to support Eni and I am here to stand up for what is right, and that is what I have always maintained the whole time. I want to tell the truth and that is what I will do.

Brendan O'Hara

Finally, what was it that persuaded you to return to the England setup in 2015?

Lianne Sanderson

It was Mark. He called me around Christmas time and picked me for the La Manga trip in 2014, and I never thought I would play for England again. I also think that they took advantage of that, because I was so excited to be back playing for England again. But I think at that time, people have told me later on, “Anyone would have brought you back in at that time”; it was kind of the thing you should do. As a new manager, it was a good decision to make, because people like me. Fans like me, most people like me. I am not saying everyone loves me, but most people do, because I am a pretty straight-up person. When Mark brought me back into the team, I was pretty vulnerable because of what happened to me before, and he knew that. For this to happen again—and, as I said, the 50th cap for me was a moment that was such an amazing feeling because I did not think I would play for England again after the situation of Hope Powell, so for myself and my family, when I got called back for England it was amazing. Then for me to get my 50th cap in China, I couldn’t wait—I never thought I would play for England again—and for that to be taken away from me was just the worst feeling in the world, it really was.

Rebecca Pow

Apologies for being late. I know that you have covered a lot of the detail about today’s report. I am going back to something you said earlier. Why do you think you and Eni were picked on? You said lots of other people were not picked on. What is it and why was that, do you think?

Lianne Sanderson

Honestly, I think a lot of it is to do with people feeling threatened. For example, Eniola can do anything. You can call me biased because I am one of her best friends, but her ability to do a lot of other things apart from football is I think what separates us from a lot of the other players.

Rebecca Pow

But she was used as a shining light by the FA because of not just her footballing skills but her other skills. What do you put that down to and what does that say about the organisation?

Lianne Sanderson

Honestly, I cannot answer that question because that is something you have to ask them. I cannot say this is why they did this, but I think, again, there is a lot of bias, there is a lot of ignorance, in that environment. I think, again, how the coach treats you is how everybody treats you in that environment. It is something that you would not understand, in this sense, because you are not on the team, you are not there. But when you are there, I can tell when I am starting, because everyone is nice to me; then when I am not, it is like, “Oh, yeah—” Do you know what I mean? It is like a different feeling. That is exactly what happened

Rebecca Pow

If the FA is promoting women’s sport and women’s football, would you think that the way you two have been treated is an encouragement for women to follow your path? They are supposed to be developing women’s football.

Lianne Sanderson

Honestly, I can see what you are saying, but I think the fact is that we have been strong enough and willing enough to go and take this where we need to. We want change; we do not want this to happen to somebody else again. I would not want somebody to go through what Eni and I have been through. Hopefully, this will now make the FA and other organisations put in place a structure for people to be able to file grievances, or whatever it may be, so that they can be successful.

Rebecca Pow

I think you said, in some of the documents that I have read, that the FA problem, which relates to all the procedures and all the rest of it, would not stop with the dismissal of Sampson, that it is much more widely prevalent. Do you still hold that view?

Lianne Sanderson

Yes, I do. I think the sacking of Mark needed to happen; at the same time, I think that this, as we have seen today from the evidence in the second investigation, is a bigger problem. Now they have got rid of Mark, that does not mean that everything just goes on like nothing has happened. This is not something that we have enjoyed. I love football, I love being a pioneer for women’s football, and for this to have happened the way it has happened did not need to happen. If they just showed the findings from what we found today, I do not think we would be sitting here now, but thankfully we are because we are now able to force their hand and make them tell the truth, if that makes sense.

Rebecca Pow

We have been told in a nice letter to the Chair that the FA has this whole system of improving the governance, the accountability, and the safeguarding under way. Are you satisfied with that?

Lianne Sanderson

If they can show improvements, yes, but it has to happen naturally. I do not think we want to see things happening just to tick a box. You want things to be done properly and for them to actually have things in place, maybe have someone like me or Eni be part of that process. It should not mean you lose your England career because we are sitting here today. That should not be the case.

Rebecca Pow

Finding a new role.

Lianne Sanderson

Yes, I guess.

Rebecca Pow

Do you think they have enough women? That was one of the things Tracey Crouch, the Sports Minister, said: we have to get more diversity into all the governance structures. Are you seeing that happening or do you think a lot more needs to happen?

Lianne Sanderson

It has definitely got better, especially in women’s football. You have seen how much it has grown. There is more publicity surrounding it, not only this case but the girls at the Euros, the World Cup and how successful we were there, but if you are going to bring more publicity you have to bring more professionalism off the field too so situations like this do not happen because now people do recognise the girls, where you are in a good position. Women’s football has progressed so much and just because this has happened it does not mean it cannot keep progressing. It does not mean we need to take it—yes, it is not a nice situation; as I said, we do not enjoy talking about this stuff. It is not something I have enjoyed talking about, but at the end of the day we need to get to the truth and what has happened.

Christian Matheson

A brief question, Ms Sanderson, on something that you answered the Chair on. It was about not being contacted when you were effectively dropped as an established international. I remember watching news reports over many years about the men’s team, and the manager of the England men’s team would say, “Well, I have dropped such and such a player, but I phoned him and explained why.” You are suggesting that that is not the normal course of events in the women’s team. Did it happen or was it specifically, perhaps, in your case and Ms Aluko’s case?

Lianne Sanderson

Usually, to be honest, we had so many meetings about what structure there is in place for certain players. The same thing happened to Anita Asante. Way before we were told about the World Cup, she was told about three months before. We had a meeting in a room about how we are going to be told on the phone, because being selected for a World Cup is a big deal, so if you are not selected you need to be with your family. Some people need to be left alone. We put a structure in place, as players, with the staff to know what was going to happen if you did not get selected. Part of that structure was to give a player a phone call. Most players who do not get selected for their country, especially if you have been selected in the past—I was never left out of a Mark Sampson team, the same as Eni had been selected for 11 years—expect a phone call. I would have expected a phone call as opposed to finding out on Twitter that I was not selected. I do not think that is too much to ask for.

Christian Matheson

I was wondering whether it was a level of disrespect in general for the women’s team, but what you are suggesting sounds a little bit more like petulance.

Lianne Sanderson

Yes. Different players have different relationships with a coach. Some players find out if they are playing before others. There is definitely preferential treatment to certain players, and that happens in teams, but it was pretty obvious in certain environments. In a team, especially a team full of women, we like to speak. When the coach says to a player they are playing, you then know you are not, but how does that player know a week before but you do not? How can you then feel valued if someone else is being told, and you are not, that you are not playing? That does not need to happen. We had all these systems in place to be able to say this is what we are going to do, but why not then listen to the system that we put in place? Why is that system only covered for certain players?

Julian Knight

Right at the start of your evidence you made reference to how your predecessors over the last 15 years had felt the same sort of disrespect. What do you think that was based on? Was it racial in character?

Lianne Sanderson

No, I don’t think it was. I think a lot of players that have played previously feel like they have been forgotten about by the FA. It is not race related, necessarily, but from my conversations with ex-players and from what I have seen on social media and stuff, you can tell that they feel as if they have been forgotten about. For myself, I have played in America now for seven years, on and off, but seven years mostly, and when a player retires there is a huge deal made about it. Do you know what I mean?

Julian Knight

Yes, retire shirts and things like that.

Lianne Sanderson

Right. I am not saying we need to start doing that, but what I am saying is that you need to make everybody feel valued. Some players have given 20 years to The Football Association and have not really been given that much of a—I think there needs to be something in place for players who have played for their country, whether it be once, 15 times, 150 times, for them to feel like they can come back and also work for The Football Association. I think that could help, having players who have previously played and had experiences, so they do not feel bitter about The Football Association and how they have been treated

Julian Knight

Do you recognise that that goes across men’s football as well? The famous example of that is Bobby Moore, World Cup-winning captain, sends in a letter, effectively applying for the England job—I think it was when Bobby Robson got the job—and he did not even get a response. Here is this great of the game, effectively, and for many years, people said that his treatment was absolutely appalling, but that seems to be an exemplar, across football. We see it among junior football as well, when people are let go by football clubs. Would you say this is something that needs to be addressed right across the piece? It is not just about the FA’s relationship with women or minority communities. It is actually a cultural issue within football, and especially within the FA, about, frankly, how we treat people.

Lianne Sanderson

Yes, definitely. Obviously, we are female so we can only go by what we see and what we have experienced. I think they tried to put positions in place in the FA and in football for players who have played for teams to go back and work for that club, or something like that, but I do think there needs to be more. There needs to more black managers involved in football. There needs to be more females involved in football. It does not matter if you are female, male, black or white, you need to make sure the person that is best for the job gets the job and that is exactly what needs to happen. There should not be any bias. They should just pick the person who is best for the job. In general, it is definitely getting better, but it could be even better than it already is.

Paul Farrelly

We have heard about the cultural review conducted by the technical director, Dan Ashworth. Were you invited to participate in that?

Lianne Sanderson

No, but I was contacted by Rachel Brace and I guess that came after. I can’t remember if it was before or after, but I was not asked to be a part of the cultural review. That is something that was interesting to me because when I then asked them what it was going to be about, they would not tell me and that is why I said, “How can you expect me to speak to you on the phone if you are not going to have the decency to tell me what you are going to talk to me about in advance?” I did not know, necessarily, what I was speaking to Rachel Brace about, and when I told her I did not want to be part of it with Katharine Newton, she recognised that it was probably wrong that they did not reach out to me at that time.

Paul Farrelly

Were you a part of the England setup at that time?

Lianne Sanderson

Yes.

Paul Farrelly

I am curious as to why one person might be asked to participate in the cultural review and you were not. It seems strange.

Lianne Sanderson

Yes. I don’t know the answer to that but maybe they already knew stuff was going on and they wanted to see what was going to happen if they spoke to Eni. I think they knew what was going on, somewhat, but then to ask her, they probably did not think she would go into as much detail as she did in the cultural review. If you asked other players, they probably would not have gone into that much detail, because they are too scared, and understandably so, that they will not play for England again because, as we have seen, it has not been confidential.

Chair

Lianne, you said that Rachel Brace contacted you. What did she say the contact was about? Was she asking you to share information, outside of the cultural review, about your experiences, or was she clear that it was linked to specific allegations that her team were investigating?

Lianne Sanderson

She did not really tell me what it was about but, to be honest, because it was someone from the FA, and it was The Football Association and I have been part of this for a long period of time, and I was not just going to ignore them, I had no reason to; it could have been about anything. Obviously, I had spoken to Eni, I knew it was going on, but I did not necessarily think that it was going to be tied. When she asked me the questions, it was kind of like asking me if I thought that bullying happens at England, so it was very generic. I said, “Bullying is not just name calling; it is the treatment of people,” and I expressed certain situations that had happened that I felt were not acceptable. I thought by sharing my story that would then—I think, from what I hope you guys have heard today, it sent a lot of red flags flying, if you are just hearing my story and everyone’s story is completely different. I just felt if they really wanted to get to the bottom of this, after what I told them—I did not hear from them, I did not hear from Rachel Brace for around four or five months, so clearly they did not want to know the truth of what was going on; otherwise they would have reached out to me again.

Chair

When this occurred, this inquiry from Rachel, was this before the Katharine Newton investigation was set up?

Lianne Sanderson

Yes, it was before. It was last year. It was around the end of October.

Chair

Okay. This would have been around the time that the PFA had a meeting with Rachel and Dan Ashworth.

Lianne Sanderson

Yes. It was definitely about Eni but they would not tell me what it was about. Does that make sense? They were not saying to me, “Have you witnessed Eni doing X, Y and Z?” They just said, “Have you witnessed or experienced bullying among the squad? Have you seen this? Have you seen that?” But obviously I am aware of what goes on with my teammates, whether that be Eni; you do not have to be best friends with someone to stand up for them and to be able to say right from wrong. For me, I just gave my honest opinion of what happened to me. I did not really speak about Eni in that situation, but I obviously knew it was about Eni. But then that is why I felt it was a weird situation, because they would not really tell me what it was about and I was thinking, “How can I give my evidence or opinion if I do not know what it is about?”

Chair

Yes. And they gave you no sense of how they were acting on the information you had given them, what they would do.

Lianne Sanderson

No. I do not believe they acted upon the information I gave them because Mark did not call me, when I said I would be open to him calling me. Then also I did not hear from them, so I genuinely feel like it was just to tick a box, but then, once I found out from Eni that they had already told her there was no wrongdoing, then I felt a bit disheartened, because I thought, “Why are they calling me then?” And they were pretty conscious of not putting stuff in an e-mail. Everything needed to be done over the phone, which I was kind of mindful of as well.

Chair

Did they encourage you not to put things in writing, just to discuss it over the phone?

Lianne Sanderson

Kind of. I would not say they encouraged it, but just by the responses via e-mail. It was more like, “We’ll talk more about it on the phone”, as opposed to, “Why can you not just tell me what this is about? I am not going to tell anybody”. I just think I deserve to know what it is about, if you want me to give a fair opinion of something, and that is why, like I said, when I was asked to give the evidence in the Katharine Newton one, I did not feel it was right to do so. I think that has been proven to be the case, until the second reportings have been found.

Chair

You were approached to give a view. You were not told what the inquiry was related to and you were not told what they did with the information afterwards.

Lianne Sanderson

No. They just asked me questions about bullying so I just guessed that it was about bullying, but it was not asking me about specific incidents. I thought it was confidential, our phone call. It is obviously not confidential now, but it was confidential at the time and it has been since, if you know what I mean. I have not spoken about this with anybody. I felt they could have asked me anything on that phone call, they could have told me it was about Eni, and I would have been able to give my opinion.

Chair

Did you principally discuss what you have already told the Committee about the way you were treated around the awarding of your 50th cap.

Lianne Sanderson

Yes.

Chair

Did you raise other issues as well?

Lianne Sanderson

I spoke about that. I spoke about what had happened to Anita Asante, how she—certain situations. I spoke about Eni, from what I can remember. I did not only speak about myself. I thought I could help, in that situation, to help other people.

Ian C. Lucas

Do you know if any of these phone calls were recorded?

Lianne Sanderson

Honestly, I do not know at this point. Maybe. I did not record it, but I guess they could have done.

Ian C. Lucas

I must say I find it very interesting that these were all done on the phone and maybe we will pursue that.

Giles Watling

You have been at some pains to say that things are improving and things are looking better all the time. Do you still believe, as a result of your experience and Eni’s experience, that the FA needs a root and branch reorganisation still? Do you think that is the way it needs to go, or is it a matter of personalities?

Lianne Sanderson

Sorry, I don’t understand your question. Could you elaborate?

Giles Watling

Very simply, do you think the FA needs to be completely reorganised and change the way its structure works or do you think things are improving? Is it just a question of losing personalities and things will improve that way?

Lianne Sanderson

Yes, I think things need to change. It is not for me to decide but I think things definitely need to change, including personnel. That is my opinion. But at the same time, like I have always said, there needs to be positions in place for us to go with grievances, where we are not going to get taken out of the team. Yes, women’s football is improving. I am not saying that the FA has improved. I am saying women’s football is improving in this country. Like I said, we will do all we can to help that be the case, when we can progress the team, where we can progress women’s football globally. Just to be clear, though, when you mentioned about the phone conversation, there was only one conversation I had on the phone. The others things were e-mails, so it was not as if I was on the phone to them all the time. It was just a conversation on the phone, a one-time thing, and then the other stuff was by e-mail.

Chair

Thank you very much, Lianne. Once again, thank you very much for your evidence to the Committee. These are really important issues and we are very grateful, not only for your time today but also for making the effort to come, to cross a nation to come here and give evidence.

Lianne Sanderson

Anything for you guys. Thanks for having me. Thank you. Examination of witnesses

Witnesses

Martin Glenn, Greg Clarke, Dan Ashworth, and Rachel Brace.

Chair

Greg Clarke, I would like to thank you and your colleagues from The Football Association for not only giving up your time today to answer the Committee’s questions as part of this inquiry but also thank you and your team for supplying all the written evidence and information the Committee requested, which has been supplied by The Football Association. Thank you as well for giving me and the Committee clerk sight of the initial Katharine Newton report and the subsequent report, which have been very helpful to us in preparing for this session, and also for advance sight of the cultural review. We understand that that is a private document and not a public one, and also that many people who gave evidence to Katharine Newton did so on the understanding that their anonymity would be protected, which is why that report could not be published in full. If I could start the questions and ask Martin Glenn first. Martin, you have issued an apology to Drew Spence and Eni Aluko following the publication of Katharine Newton’s second report. You have apologised for the conduct of Mark Sampson. Do you feel that you should also apologise for the way in which the FA handled the investigation of this affair?

Martin Glenn

I want to reiterate that we want to offer a full and unreserved apology to Drew and Eniola. An independent report has found that they were subject to discriminatory remarks, which is both against the Equality Act 2010 but, every bit as important to us, against the values of the FA. It is not right that an FA employee should have behaved that way. What we believe, however, in the context of today, is how do we develop a grievance procedure that is suitable for elite sport. We have a grievance procedure, which is one that I define as being useful for a normal-sized organisation, the size of the FA, but it has clearly fallen short in this area with respect to how to deal with the pressures that elite players have with respect to their coach. Regarding a general apology about how we handled it, I believe, we believe, that we have handled this with decency and openness. We have taken the concerns raised by Eniola seriously; we have done one internal review with the head of HR and the head of technical. When that did not seem to give satisfaction, we went to an independent barrister, opened the doors, and asked her to conclude what she thought, and then asked her again, when there were clearly some pieces of evidence that had not been uncovered, to go and thoroughly do those. I think that shows that the FA has taken it very seriously. I regret that the two comments, the inappropriate banter, have been made. That is not right for an FA employee. However, I do think the spirit with which we approached all the concerns has been good.

Chair

You set out the process. I am sure there will be lots of questions about the process from members of the Committee. You said in your written statement to the Committee, which we have published as well today, that you stand by the process and do not accept the criticisms that have been made. Is that still your position?

Martin Glenn

It absolutely is and we have the head of HR, Rachel Brace, and Dan Ashworth from the technical department to answer the detailed questions, which is not to say there is nothing to learn, which I said in my opening remarks. However, I do believe that the substance of the issues that were raised was honestly and diligently dealt with.

Chair

Katharine Newton was critical of the process, was she not?

Martin Glenn

I will let Rachel answer some of the detail, but in the round, if you read Katharine Newton’s report, it is a very holistic view—and we did ask her in—about the approach that has been taken. I think she felt, in the round, that there was no evidence to substantiate most of the concerns that were raised. One point she made about the process was the possibility of a slight conflict of interest on one aspect between Dan Ashworth in his role as technical director and witness. I would like to ask Rachel to add comments to that.

Chair

Believe me, we will come on to other members of the panel, but you have spoken about this and you were the one who wrote to the Committee about the process. Katharine Newton was clear in her statement that as far as she is concerned there is no grievance procedure for players in Eniola’s position. That is what Eniola has said as well and that is what Lianne has said. They do not believe there is a proper grievance procedure. The direct criticism about the process, one that many organisations might find quite fundamental, is when someone who is co-leading an internal review is also supplying evidence to that review. That is a very poor example of due process. That is why I asked you again whether you feel there are not just lessons to be learned but actually an apology should be issued for the initial process that was set up by the FA, which was not fit for purpose.

Martin Glenn

I have a different point of view, if I might. One of the reasons that we asked an independent barrister in was to give us the benefit of an independent, fresh pair of eyes on the process, and I think that was right. However, to reiterate, we took the concerns and complaints seriously. We followed them in a way that was typical of most organisations, with an internal review process. When that was felt to still have unanswered questions in the eyes of the complainant, we then went further. I think that is pretty good going.

Chair

This was an initial internal process where, as Eniola has told the Committee, she was asked to write down specific complaints, grievances that she asked the FA to look into, and she never received from the FA a line-by-line response to the allegations that she made.

Martin Glenn

I would like Rachel to respond to that.

Chair

It is true, though, isn’t it? You would admit that.

Martin Glenn

I will not admit that she did not get a response from the FA.

Chair

That is not what I said. She was asked to set out in writing her specific allegations and she never got a response, line by line, to those allegations that she made. She may have had a general response from the FA but she never had a specific line-by-line response to the allegations she was told by the FA to write down, did she?

Martin Glenn

I think you characterised the—

Chair

Did she? I would like you to answer the question.

Martin Glenn

Eniola had a fulsome response in terms of dialogue with Rachel Brace and Dan Ashworth.

Chair

That is not the question I asked. I said she was asked to write down her grievances, to give them to the FA, and she never received from the FA a response to each of those grievances that she had raised, did she? She didn’t, did she?

Martin Glenn

I guess on the specific—in the form addressed—yes, but I think in the spirit of what was asked for, then she was fully engaged.

Chair

She clearly does not agree with that. But in terms of process, if you ask someone as part of a process to write down what their complaints are and to then give them to do, and then you do not respond to each of those complaints, a lot of people would say that is not a good process.

Rachel Brace

If I could add to the facts, as I understand it we did not ask Eniola to do that. When I picked this up, there had been a small e-mail correspondence between her and Dan about the Owen Eastwood issue and they had agreed that they would meet to speak about it. On one of those e-mails, Eniola attached her letter, which had all of her allegations listed out. That was something that she decided to do. We did not ask her to do that and we did not ask her to do it in a certain way.

Chair

If I could continue with you, Rachel, the brief that was effectively given to Katharine Newton was based on the written submission she gave. It was very faithful in that it sets out each of the allegations, as written and codified by Eniola Aluko, and seeks to respond to them. I want to talk about the terms of reference that were established for Katharine Newton’s inquiry. There were a number of allegations and I would like to focus on one or two of them in particular. One of them is the allegation, which Eni repeats, that Drew Spence had made—it has now been fully investigated—about the comments that were made by Mark Sampson in the midfield unit team meeting during the China Cup. Again in terms of process, would you regard it as a failure of process that neither you nor Dan Ashworth had viewed the video of that meeting that had been referred to before coming to a conclusion that he did not believe there was a case to be answered?

Rachel Brace

We had a second meeting with the PFA and Eni, and we said in the room that we had not watched the video when we were asked the question. We admitted that was an oversight. We had not formed any written conclusions at that point. I was asked by the PFA, ahead of that meeting, to put my conclusions in writing and I said, “No, I don’t think that is the right thing to do”. In any grievance process you understand that in any meeting you go into new evidence can come out of that meeting, and therefore I reserved the right to have that meeting, to listen to what was said, and then it was a matter, after that, to put my written conclusions together, with Dan obviously.

Chair

From Eniola’s point of view, that is a pretty fundamental piece of evidence. We know subsequently that the contents of the video did not resolve the matter one way or the other. You did not know that and nor did Dan Ashworth, but nevertheless you felt comfortable enough to give a view on the issue that had been raised, without having looked at that piece of evidence, what many people would have thought was a pretty vital piece of evidence to have considered.

Rachel Brace

We did not give a view on that piece of evidence. We apologised immediately and said it was an oversight. We did not try to give a view on it.

Chair

Looking at an allegation like that, what someone else might have done is think, “We have an allegation that has been made. We know that Drew Spence is the person who has made the allegation”. It was never a secret that it was Drew Spence, in terms of the internal inquiry, and Katharine Newton identifies Drew Spence in the video, in her first report, so it is clear to her who it is that we are talking about. What another investigation might do is say, “We will look at the video evidence. If that is not conclusive, there were other people in the room. Do they remember those comments having been made?” But you did not speak to any of those other people, did you? You did not speak to any of those players.

Rachel Brace

There are a couple of points that are quite important about that allegation. One of the points that I think it is important to make is that in Eniola’s allegation—and the barrister picks this up in her final report—is that it is very clear that she believes that the matter has been said during the meeting; it is very clear to say “during the meeting”. We watched the videotape a number of times, as did the barrister. Nothing untoward is said in that meeting. When we had the conversation with Eniola and the PFA, the very first meeting we had, the issue of confidentiality came up very quickly. Eniola was very concerned that this matter was kept private. She talked about the fact that a couple of journalists had been contacting her and she did not want this matter to get out into the media. She absolutely wanted us to respect that. One of the issues that was brought up was about Drew Spence, as you say. Drew’s name was not mentioned but what we were told was that she did not want Drew brought into this; she was a young player and she wanted to protect the privacy of young players. We respected those wishes. I felt that given that this comment was said to have been made during the meeting—we later find out that the comment was not made during the meeting, it was actually made in a sort of pre-meeting, if you like—we could only follow the evidence as we saw it. We did not then speak to a cast of other players because clearly that was going to open up the debate in the squad, which we just did not feel was respectful to Eniola’s wishes.

Chair

Many people would expect this to be a proper process. You are investigating a serious allegation that has been made that has now ultimately been investigated. At that point, you did not seek to speak to the other players. Eniola says that her view was not that she was saying you cannot speak to Drew Spence and that it was open to the FA to speak to Drew directly and to clarify what had been said. That appears not to have been done.

Rachel Brace

That is not Drew’s understanding. I went to a meeting at Chelsea Football Club with our legal director, and Drew attended the meeting with her legal representative. One of the first things that I was keen to understand in that meeting, to make sure that I had not misunderstood things, was whether she had wanted to be involved in this and what her wishes were. She confirmed at the time that she did not want to be involved in this investigation. She had only spoken up because she had been identified in the media. She also confirmed that by the very fact that we had not contacted her, she believed that her wishes had been complied with. That is what she told me.

Chair

It is quite easy to identify from the video who the players are, and even if you had not seen the video, it is the midfield unit from that squad so you could just look at the midfield players in the squad and know who could have been party to that conversation. It sounds like almost a matter of policy that you were not going to talk to any of those players about the allegation that had been made.

Rachel Brace

No, not a matter of policy at all. One of the things that is really important in any grievance procedure is that you carry it out in a way that is, in your understanding, respectful of the victim’s wishes. These were really serious allegations and it was my understanding, from the first meeting that we had had, that this matter was very sensitive and it needed to be kept tight, it needed to be contained. Although I absolutely agree with what Eniola said, which is there was never expressly, “You cannot speak to a certain person”, it was a very clear understanding on all of our parts that this needed to be done with absolute privacy, as much as it possibly could be, and Eniola gave the name of two witnesses that she wanted us to speak to.

Chair

Do you regard the process with Katharine Newton as being a tight process?

Rachel Brace

That was done under different terms and the instructions were very clearly different. We recognised that the internal process had not got to where Eniola wanted it to get to, it had been constrained, and I was very clear, when we spoke to Farrers, who instructed Katharine Newton, that from our perspective it was a different landscape, that it was about leaving no stone unturned, and that therefore all parties needed to understand that it was likely that people might start to talk about this. But that is what you have to weigh up when you are weighing people’s privacy and trying to get to the truth. What we felt was that was the right way to go forward. We did not do that disrespectfully. We wrote to Eniola and we told her that that is what we were going to do and we asked her if she would want to co-operate in the process.

Chair

In the terms of reference you set up for Katharine Newton, you recommended that she speak to 16 people who were relevant to the inquiry, in our view. You put those 16 names forward, didn’t you?

Rachel Brace

To be clear, I did not instruct Katharine Newton. It would be completely inappropriate for me to do that. I had the conversation with Farrers and they instructed Katharine Newton. But, yes, players’ names were put forward.

Chair

You put them forward. Okay. There were players’ names on that list.

Rachel Brace

Yes, absolutely.

Chair

None of those players were players who were in that midfield unit meeting, were they?

Rachel Brace

The players’ names on the list were the names of the players we understood were happy to come forward. That was something that Dan managed, because obviously the players were very sensitive about getting involved in this.

Chair

This is a really serious allegation that has been subsequently part of another inquiry, and then upheld. Sixteen names were given to Katharine Newton, and none of them, not one of those names, was a player who was in that meeting, not one.

Rachel Brace

Absolutely. I agree with you.

Chair

Katharine Newton interviews 10 people as part of the process and that includes, I think, three players, but again none of the people who were in the midfield unit meeting because it had never been suggested to her that she should. Do you not think that it was a massive oversight not to consider approaching any one of the players who were witness to that meeting to ask them whether they could corroborate what Drew Spence believed they had been saying?

Rachel Brace

My understanding of the list of players that I was given was it was a list of players who were willing to co-operate. I cannot speak for who was not prepared to co-operate. Dan put the list together. He might be able to give more on that.

Chair

It is an investigation into a specific allegation, to which there are eyewitnesses, and no one approached any of the eyewitnesses to ask them if they could corroborate what had been said.

Rachel Brace

It is an independent investigation.

Chair

Surely, if what you are doing, if your ambition is to leave no stone unturned, as you say, those are a lot of big stones, sitting there that no one is touching. Some people might say you are deliberately steering the barrister away from people who might be able to corroborate what was said.

Rachel Brace

You can only put forward people who are willing to co-operate. You would have—

Chair

Did you speak to any of the midfield unit players about it, about the idea of co-operating with the inquiry? Did they decline to do so?

Rachel Brace

I did not speak directly with players.

Chair

Perhaps Dan Ashworth can help us with this, on this particular question.

Dan Ashworth

No. As far as—

Chair

No, you did not. Okay. I am sure we will have other questions for you. You did not. Now, with the second report, lo and behold, all of these players are spoken to and the decision of Katharine Newton to uphold the complaint is not just based on Drew Spence’s interview and it is not just based on the WhatsApp messages that have been shared, it is also based on two of the players in the midfield unit saying, “Yes, I believe that was said” or words to that effect. Is that not right?

Rachel Brace

Two players did; other players said something different.

Chair

But it was Katharine Newton’s decision, based on weighing all the evidence, that they did. If those players had been approached as part of your initial review, at the very beginning, or for at least part of Katharine Newton’s first investigation, it may well be she would have reached a different determination some time ago. Is that not right?

Rachel Brace

I think if all the evidence had been put forward at the beginning we may well have been able to reach a different outcome, but it was not.

Chair

Many people would see this. There is a difference. If someone has written evidence that they have not told you about and you do not know exists, and therefore you do not ask for it because you do not know it exists, that is very different from saying there are eyewitnesses to one of these allegations, people who were in the room, we know who they are, but we are not going to approach any one of them about co-operating with the inquiry and we are not going to suggest to the barrister, who may not know who those players are, that they contact any of them either. Many people would see that as a massive dereliction of your responsibility to make sure that there was, as you said, no stone unturned in this investigation.

Rachel Brace

Absolutely no stone unturned in the Katharine Newton investigation. We were very clear to carry out the investigation in a way that respected wishes and if we had gone round and spoken to 10 players, then this would have got out.

Chair

But it is not 10 players, is it? It was not 10 players. It was a relatively tight group of people and you knew who they were. It was one very specific thing they were being asked to comment on. When that was finally done, which it should have been upfront, it led to two people coming forward and substantiating the allegation made.

Ian C. Lucas

This was a serious allegation that had been made. You did not make any investigations based on that allegation initially, did you? You said something very interesting. You said you wanted to keep it tight.

Rachel Brace

Based on Eniola’s wishes.

Ian C. Lucas

But you did not investigate because you did not ask anybody about what she had said.

Rachel Brace

There were many allegations raised and we did lots of investigation. We are talking specifically about the Drew Spence issue, which I understand, and our understanding, as has been explained, as was backed up to me by what Drew Spence said to me when I visited Chelsea Football Club, was that she did not want to be brought into this.

Ian C. Lucas

But this is not a matter for Drew Spence. It is a matter for the FA, because a serious allegation was made to the FA, and you did not investigate it, did you?

Rachel Brace

We investigated everything we could within the constraints.

Ian C. Lucas

At that stage, who did you speak to? Which of the witnesses did you speak to?

Rachel Brace

I spoke to Anita Asante and I spoke to Lianne Sanderson.

Ian C. Lucas

You have just given evidence to say that you did not lift any stones up at all. You did not ask any of the individuals concerned, the witnesses, what had been said.

Rachel Brace

I gave evidence on the fact that the brief for the barrister was to leave no stone unturned.

Ian C. Lucas

I am not talking about the barrister. When you were told, first of all, about this serious allegation, which of the witnesses did you speak to about it?

Rachel Brace

I don’t understand. We did not speak to Drew Spence. She was the person who had had the remark made to her.

Ian C. Lucas

What investigation did you carry out at that stage?

Rachel Brace

We watched the video. We were told that this had happened in the meeting. There was no evidence on the video of anything untoward happening.

Ian C. Lucas

Did you accept that what Eni had said was true?

Rachel Brace

I accepted that Eni had heard something and that she had heard it from Drew. Without being able to speak to Drew, obviously what Eni has said, and she has said in her allegation, was hearsay.

Ian C. Lucas

We have had subsequent investigations. Do you accept that the first investigation that you carried out was completely and utterly inadequate?

Rachel Brace

No, I don’t, and neither did the barrister. We did the best we could within the constraints.