Triesman testimony leaves unanswered questions
Lord Triesman's evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on Tuesday was more interesting for what he didn't say rather than what he did.
After a session which had included claims of Premier League dominance, a failing Football Association and a bizarre exchange on Premier League chairman Sir David Richards' "colourful" language, former FA chairman Triesman teased us all with another promise to reveal what really went on during the 2018 World Cup bidding campaign.
Shortly after England lost to Russia in December, Triesman went on Channel 4 promising to tell all.
He repeated that promise to MPs on Tuesday, saying: "I think there will be a time when the contact that I and others had with members of the Fifa executive committee should be described in detail because some of the processes I don't think stand up to proper scrutiny."
Despite repeated attempts to get him to spill the beans in an interview with the BBC afterwards - see below - Triesman would not be drawn any further, adding only:
"I recognise people will draw the inference that I have things to say that will illuminate the process and its murkier elements. But when I describe it I will do it in a parliamentary inquiry."
No date has been set for that session and who knows if Triesman really has a smoking gun. But if he does make claims against Fifa's executive committee then it will only add to the sense of unease around the bidding process, not only for 2018 but for 2022 as well.
If his claims are really explosive then why didn't he tell anyone at the time?
We didn't learn a great deal in truth from the committee's opening session. Many of the things we long suspected from Triesman's time in charge of the FA were confirmed as he subtly tried to settle a few old scores.
He explained how the FA board was heavily conflicted, that there is a systemic failure at the top of the sport, that Richards is "aggressive" and that any attempts to force change and make the FA more diverse were strongly resisted.
Triesman also brought along a copy of the infamous submission to former Culture Secretary Andy Burnham from May 2009 which was a blueprint for the FA to reclaim control of English football.
That, Triesman says, was dismissed and buried after two minutes of a meeting of the Professional Game Board - FA board members representing the clubs plus Richards.
With the Premier League under attack again, its chief executive Richard Scudamore will argue that the game isn't broke, so why fix it? It's never made more money and has never been more popular.
But a sense of unease remains that as the game has become more wealthy and successful, the way it is regulated simply hasn't kept up.
The best point of the day was made by Lord Terry Burns, the chairman of Channel 4 and the author of a report on the FA's structure which, six years on, has still not been implemented in full.
Burns said the FA's current set-up was flawed, a bit like having the top banks represented on the board of the City regulator, the Financial Services Authority, and couldn't possibly work.
Until football accepts that point, one fears this might not be the last inquiry the game has to face.