Has the FA gone far enough?
The Football Association's decision to abstain from next month's Fifa presidential vote was hardly a surprise.
Faced with the impossible choice of the incumbent Sepp Blatter or the Qatari challenger Mohamed Bin Hammam, the chairman David Bernstein had already hinted last week that abstention was the only credible alternative.
But should the FA have used today's long awaited decision to blow a far louder raspberry at the men in Switzerland who run world football?
Here's how the FA explained its decision:
"There are a well reported range of issues both recent and current which, in the view of the FA board, make it difficult to support either candidate."
This is hardly the sort of rhetoric many football fans would have expected following England's humiliation in the World Cup 2018 vote last December.
In the immediate aftermath of that decision there were far bolder words from the FA. General Secretary Alex Horne talked of lobbying other disaffected nations to force Fifa to change. The acting chairman Roger Burden withdrew his application for job on a full time basis saying he couldn't work with an organisation which said one thing but then did another.
Since then Fifa has faced another round of damaging allegations about the probity of its executive committee members, with six now accused of asking for or taking bribes during the deeply flawed bidding contests for 2018 and 2022.
David Bernstein may be highly regarded for his skills as a leader by consensus, but promising to work hard to "bring about any changes we (the FA) think would benefit all of international football" doesn't quite reflect the way most people in this country feel about Fifa.
So what could the FA have done?
They could have put up an alternative candidate who could have lobbied for genuine reform. They would have stood no chance of winning but it might have helped frame the debate and draw Blatter and Bin Hammam into going further with promises to tackle corruption claims and make Fifa more transparent.
Or they could have worked harder on a boycott of nations who share their feelings about Fifa. Big sponsors like Adidas would have been extremely nervous if major markets like Britain and America started talking about pulling out of the organisation.
Instead we are left with this abstention, something which reminds me of Denis Healey's famous line comparing an attack from Geoffrey Howe to being savaged by a dead sheep.
Unsurprisingly Blatter wasted no time in sending a message back to England from Zurich, describing the move as "strange" and wondering why "the number one association in the world" had decided not to make a choice.
And of course the danger now for the FA is that whoever wins - and it is increasingly likely it will be Blatter - will simply brush the FA's opposition aside leaving England even more isolated. The FA's vote is just one of 208 and will make no difference to the outcome.
Perhaps events will prove the FA right to tread cautiously.
An inquiry into the allegations of corruption against four Fifa members made in parliament last week by Lord Triesman has only just started. That may force Fifa's hand.
Blatter has also revealed that the whistleblower who claims two other members received $1.5m (£927,500) from Qatar's successful 2022 bid has been asked to Fifa house to give their evidence in person.
But whatever happens with those inquiries, Fifa knows it's unlikely any of the latest claims will be backed up by hard, incontrovertible evidence.
And in the end the FA's stance may come to look like a hollow, meaningless gesture.