Do the FA have a case to answer over Eniola Aluko's claims?

Do the FA have a case to answer over Eniola Aluko's claims?


So you may have heard/read about Eniola Aluko’s claims that the Lioness’ head coach, Mark Sampson, lead a bullying and racists culture.

I think she thinks the FA have a case to answer to but reading her interview (on the BBC) I find it hard to agree with her.

Maybe it’s just me but one of the comments she claims is racist (about Ebola) seems more misguided than anything.

Also it’s difficult to judge the PITA comment out of context.


Kick it out also want a new FA enquiry after new evidence has been given.

I also fail to see what this will acheive since the first 2 enquiries were full and independent?

Maybe they just want enquiries until someone agrees with them?


He says he didn’t say anything about Ebola. Doesn’t seem to be any proof. She also said he called her a pain in the arse when she scored a hat trick. Perhaps he was messing with her and she hasn’t got a sense of humour? Who knows? It seems to be her word against his from what I read.


Nothing to see here over reaction on her part

lock the thread on the way out.


So what - one of my best salesmen is an enormous pain in the arse, a fact I remind him of frequently.


This has cover up written all over it.

They gave her a new contract even though she made it clear that she would never play for the manager. They also paid her £40k to stop her taking them to a tribunal. Why?


@saint-or-sinner you’ve just asked the question that I was asking myself as I was walking back from Asda.

I don’t know the answer, however in the BBC interview she doesn’t say that she would never play for Sampson again, she just said she wasn’t picked because of her attitude in the dressing room, or lack of it.


Usually because this kind of thing is a massive ball ache and a huge drain of time, and lots of organisation just want shot of the issue. Also the cost of defending (even if you are in the right) can often exceed any settlement you can reach

Lots of people get comped out in all walks of life.


The FA renewed Aluko’s £20,000 contract even though the 30-year-old stated she would not be able to play “under his [Sampson’s] management”.


Aye I read that, yet this excerpt from the BBC article seems to tell a different story

Aluko says she is concerned by the timing and reasons behind Sampson’s decision to drop her from the England squad, despite her being the top goalscorer in last season’s Women’s Super League.

“I can only state the facts, and the fact is a week before I was dropped from the England team for the first time in 11 years I had given my account of what I felt was discrimination towards me, what I felt was a bullying culture and what I felt was a pattern of behaviour towards me that other individuals had not been through in the team,” she said.

“I’ve suffered a huge detriment. I am only 30 years old. I was planning on playing for England for another four years. So, whichever way you look at it, being a part of that cultural review has potentially cost me my England career.”

She says she was told she was dropped because she “wasn’t abiding by ‘Lioness standards’” - and the example given to her was that she appeared withdrawn in team meetings.

When asked if it is possible that Sampson simply dropped her in good faith, Aluko replied: "I can’t answer that question, I’m not Mark Sampson, but it’s possible, yes.

"But, I would say, if that is the case and if you’re saying to somebody ‘you’ve shown bad behaviour and I’m dropping you for that reason’ - and that’s a legitimate reason - I would expect better examples than ‘you looked withdrawn in a meeting’.

“If you accuse somebody of bad behaviour, you need to come up with better - and, to this day, I haven’t been given any examples.”


And the contract? And barrister Katharine Newton, from Old Square Chambers. How much did she charge to conduct an enquiry that never talked to the player in question?

Not disputing your examples, just think in this case, it’s a convenient excuse. Katharine could’ve represented them.


The contract - no idea. Maybe the contract was up for renewal. Imagine the fuss if they hadn’t given her a new contract. Maybe they were advised from a legal basis to give her a renewal.

As for barristers I have been quoted a grand an hour before. Shit hot litigators from one of the big legal firms go for around £600 /h these days, so barristers will be more than that.

The problem with these cases is that we rarely hear the all facts in the correct context. Maybe she has a case, maybe she doesn’t, but she did accept a settlement agreement. who knows.


Fucking hell, that’s double the rate of the last one i had. Long time ago, but didn’t expect double. Maybe he was just shit, I did have to direct him at one point.


Shit reason for dropping her.

How does Tadic ever get a game. Surely his sulking permalook is nailed on grounds for dismissal.

Anyway, as far as i know the contract was offered after she made it clear that she would never play for Sampson again. Her comments about playing for England for another 4 years, seem no more than her stating her career aims, rather than anything to do with what else has gone on.


I heard her interviewed on 5live last night and thought it sounded a bit iffy tbf.

Why did she refuse to be involved in an independent investigation but tell everyone about further"facts" via national media?

I’m of the view that you go to court to air any grievances and if you win then shout it from the rooftops.

Sounds more like sour grapes to me.


The more i read, the more it stinks.


Rarely disagree with you SOS but this is from the left wing equivalent of the daily fail. Not an independent viewpoint. Listen to her being interviewed on t’BBC and you can get a feeling her allegations don’t stack up… I may be doing the woman an injustice and will apologise if subsequently a jury or panel find in her favour (inevitably)


Possibly, but there are a lot of things that don’t add up and there have been other players agreeing, now they can.

My money says this isn’t going away. It’s going to be big. Endemic might be the term used at the end of all this.

Then again, i might be talking bollocks.


Have there been other players agreeing? I have not seen that. I have not read as much as some of you on here but after I saw the interview with Aluko, my first impression was Nope - I don’t buy that.

As has been said, two independent enquiries so far and a “witness” who failed to appear as well as Aluko herself not being fully cooperative. She may well have been paid a lump sum but lots of businesses pay nuisance payments to avoid legal costs, even when they are blameless.

If however others have said the same as Aluko now, it could be very different.


The enquiries were a farce. They said they couldn’t identify a player(lie) and failed to interview an important witness until after(yes after) they had released their findings. They also refuse to release video footage that could prove it one way or another. Why is that?

Asante and Sanderson have both also voiced concerns.