MPs let Premier League powerbrokers off the hook
Despite spending almost two hours questioning the Premier League's hierarchy on Tuesday, MPs missed a valuable opportunity to shed a clearer light on why there is so much pressure on football to make big changes.
True, the chief executive Richard Scudamore and chairman Sir Dave Richards, gave an impressive performance on a wide range of topics. But, once again, we failed to get a sense of where this select committee inquiry is heading.
Is it about the structure and perceived conflicts of interest inside the Football Association which makes it, arguably, less effective than it should be?
Is it about the debts carried by top clubs and financial regulation and who should take the lead?
Is it about the England team and why it keeps failing in World Cups?
Or is it about who owns Leeds United?
Of course it is about all these things but after listening to Scudamore and Richards robustly defend their corner in front of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, it would be easy to come away with the impression that nothing is broken.
According to the League's top two, there is no conflict of interest in Sir Dave Richards' role as a vice chairman of the FA and as chairman of the Premier League.
There is no opposition to plans to reform or to make the FA's board and council more inclusive and independent although, they argue, the FA, by its very nature, has to be a sum of football's constituent parts as an association of interests.
There is no need for the FA to introduce a new financial licensing system as the League's clubs (well, every one except Blackpool) have signed up for Uefa's new financial fair play system.
And on and on it went.
Premier League will act on player behaviour - Scudamore
The League deserves great credit for introducing new regulations on debt, the ownership of clubs and even for its initiative last week to try and improve player behaviour.
But many in football believe these are things traditionally the FA should lead on. If not what else is the FA for?
And MPs failed to put Richards and Scudamore on the spot over why the League has felt the need to take on a greater governance role or indeed, whether it was appropriate for clubs to police themselves.
Scudamore's explanation was that he had a better chance as the clubs' trusted lieutenant to persuade them to introduce regulatory changes, than the FA.
But is that good enough? Shouldn't the FA act in the interests of the whole game, not just the 20 richest clubs.
All the headlines will no doubt focus on the acrimony between Richards and Scudamore and former FA chairman Lord David Triesman.
Richards said he was hurt at claims that he bullied Triesman and couldn't understand why he said he tried to block his attempts to change the FA.
Both Richards and Scudamore blamed Triesman for a lack of consultation - particularly on an FA submission to the former Culture Secretary Andy Burnham.
But both Triesman and his former chief executive Ian Watmore's claims of a dysfunctional FA cannot simply be dismissed as a breakdown in the relationship between the personalities at the top.
And unless this inquiry starts to focus on exactly where it thinks the FA and English football is broken, its eventual findings cannot possibly hope to fix it.