English football's power-brokers embroiled in public spat over Paul Elliott snub

English football’s key stakeholders were embroiled in an extraordinary public row on Tuesday after plans to appoint Paul Elliott to the Football Association board were blocked.

The FA want to add greater diversity to their executive board and proposed former Chelsea defender Elliott, who is chair of their inclusion advisory board, be given a seat on the board.

But those plans are no closer to fruition as FA chairman Greg Clarke accused the Premier League and EFL of blocking Elliott’s proposed appointment.

Sportsmail can also reveal:

• Elliott is exasperated but the news has strengthened his resolve to make lasting change at the FA.
• There are concerns that attempts to broker peace between the FA, Premier League and EFL on Tuesday night could leave Elliott’s appointment in limbo.
• Rupinder Bains — the only non-white member of the FA board — objected to Elliott’s appointment.
• There is a feeling from inside the FA that the Premier League and EFL were rushed into agreeing a review of the governing body’s board by Clarke’s damning accusations.

In an explosive letter released on Tuesday morning, Clarke revealed the FA’s attempts to review the make-up of their board and promote Elliott had been halted by the ‘Professional Game’ – the Premier League and EFL – and to a lesser extent the National Game – essentially amateur football – during a meeting last Thursday.

His remarks caused anger at the Premier League and EFL and sparked discussions between all three organisations yesterday afternoon.

As a result Clarke climbed down just hours after his original statement, insisting he didn’t intend to be ‘divisive’ before claiming all parties are now in favour of reviewing FA board diversity.

The Premier League and EFL immediately released a joint statement of their own, acknowledging Clarke’s ‘clarification’ before insisting ‘the original letter did not reflect the true nature of the discussions held at The FA Board meeting’.

The statement also added: ‘We wholeheartedly support the objective of improving diversity at every level of the game – including The FA Board – and are engaging with The FA on the options to achieve this.

‘It was agreed at last week’s FA Board meeting to undertake an evaluation of diversity and inclusion within The FA in a consultative but efficient manner.’

However, despite the apparent attempts to draw a line under the situation, the fact remains that Elliott’s appointment to the board is still to be approved.

Indeed, there is a feeling the Premier League and EFL, despite their statement, are buying themselves time when approving Elliott’s seat on would have been a far more significant step forward.

The fact there was no timescale put on the Premier League and EFL’s joint statement has also raised obvious concerns.

Sources claim there was particularly disappointment from within the FA’s diversity and inclusion department and Elliott himself.

Elliott is currently focussed on devising an FA code aimed at improving diversity in leadership positions in English football, which is due to be launched in October.

Despite the setback, FA insiders insist the decision not to agree his appointment has simply bolstered his determination to make the code a success.

Meanwhile, it is understood non-executive board member Bains was among Elliott’s objectors.

Bains is one of three ‘Professional Game’ representatives on the FA board alongside Premier League delegate Peter McCormack and EFL chairman Rick Parry.

Successful solicitor Bains was appointed the FA’s first Asian director in November 2017 but, in her capacity as a Professional Game representative, stopped short of backing the move to promote Elliott.

It is important to stress, however, no official vote was taken at last week’s board meeting.

In another move designed to improve diversity within their boardroom, the FA proposed to give the Professional and National Games section of the board an extra seat to provide the flexibility to allow the appointment of diverse candidates.

But as Clarke disclosed in original his letter: ‘The Professional Game were against such a review believing the changes introduced in 2017 were sufficient.

‘The National Game were sympathetic to a review and consultation with Council but did not want to oppose the Professional Game.

‘However, without the support of the Professional Game and National Game, who have a majority of Directors, a review of the FA Board composition is not possible.’

Independent directors Stacey Cartwright and Kate Tinsley both offered to stand down from their positions in order to allow greater diversity on the board but the offer was declined.