Is football governance inquiry too broad to hit target?
It took an Irishman - former Arsenal and Manchester City striker Niall Quinn - to point out English football's failings in its humiliating 2018 World Cup bid.
Giving evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee's inquiry into football governance on Tuesday, Quinn, now chairman of Premier League club Sunderland, said "arrogance" had "drowned out all the good stuff".
Stoke City chairman Peter Coates was also heavily critical of the way England's bid team had failed to see the humiliation coming. His words are worth quoting at length.
"It was pretty shocking," he said.
"I'm surprised we didn't know more. We had no idea we were only going to get one vote (in addition to the one from England's own Fifa member Geoff Thompson). There's something wrong if we didn't know that. It surprised me we weren't smart enough to get a flavour or feel of that and ended up with an egg on our face."
David Bernstein is set to act on the back of recent criticism of the FA.
Of course, one of the reasons - if not the main one - we are having this parliamentary inquiry is because of the failed World Cup bid last December. The first-round exit, coming as it did in the same year as England's early elimination from the World Cup in South Africa, highlighted existing concerns about the way the Football Association is run.
The Government wants to see change and Coates, Quinn and Manchester United chief executive David Gill took the opportunity to press the Premier League's case for FA reform on Tuesday.
Gill argued that the FA was not "completely broken" but added that the turnover of senior staff - a clear reference to the departures of chief executive Ian Watmore and Lord Triesman within the space of two months last year - was not helpful.
Gill and Coates agreed it was now time to add two independent directors to the board of the FA to help the new chairman David Bernstein, while Bernstein himself wrote to the FA council suggesting the same thing last month.
This has become totemic for the Government and this inquiry. Yet the idea is certain to be fiercely resisted by those elements of the FA - namely respresentatives of the amateur game - with most to lose. And will it really make any difference?
Former FA board member and Football League chairman Lord Mawhinney made exactly that point during his damning evidence to the committee.
"For the last few years, the record at the FA is pretty terrible," he said. "But people should not assume that the problems will be solved by appointing two non-executive directors. The FA's problems are much deeper and more radical than that."
The success of this inquiry will be judged on whether the MPs can get to the bottom of these problems. But the broad range of questions faced by Gill and his Premier League colleagues illustrates why the committee may ultimately miss the target.
Gill spent decent chunks of his time in front of the committee defending Manchester United's debt-financed business model. This is clearly a matter of public interest - particularly for United supporters - and his admission that it would be better for the club if they did not have to pay £45m a year in interest is significant.
But - and I have said this before - the danger is that, unless it becomes a bit more focused in its questioning, this committee's remit will become too broad to deliver anything worthwhile.