Peter Corrigan: A game we cannot afford the FA to lose

Sven Goran Eriksson has enjoyed the sort of week that beleaguered humans can usually only dream about. Seven days ago he was up to his neck in muck and bullets as he was bombarded from every direction. Then, suddenly, the noise abated and the mob moved away.

Any flak that was buzzing about his ears after the latest revelations from Ulrika Jonsson's book zoomed off in the direction of a television presenter Eriksson, like me, had probably never heard of, as, meanwhile, his best pal at the Football Association was taking his place in the nation's firing line.

Indeed, the FA's chief executive, Adam Crozier, has been getting blasted from all directions with a gusto not even a crappy 2-2 home draw with Macedonia could incite. The only difference is that the public might have understood the reasons why Eriksson had been under fire but would find it difficult to grasp precisely why Crozier was "On The Brink" as one newspaper put it.

This lack of appreciation of the finer points of modern football stems from the naïve belief that the most important battles going on in the game are those that take place on the football arenas of the country at odd times over the weekend and during the week. Not so. The struggle now ensuing for the upper hand in English football has far-reaching consequences and is fast reaching a crucial stage that the FA must not lose.

To put it simply – the clubs cannot be allowed to govern. They should be permitted, and I believe already possess, enough autonomy to run their own leagues and husband their own finances, but beyond that they should be subject to the overall control of the official governing body, the FA.

It has been thus for 140 years. No one would dream of suggesting that they have been years of uninterrupted sense and smoothness. Like every FA in every country, the hands on the helm have belonged to an uncomfortable number of knaves and nincompoops, but they have somehow steered the nation's foremost game to its present position; which is not as strong as it could be but a damn sight stronger that it might have been.

Along this long road, the clubs have been anything but the FA's meek and obedient servants. The old Football League was constantly at loggerheads with its so-called masters, but it was a healthy if belligerent relationship and, with both sides watching each other like hawks, there was a limit on any extreme nonsense.

When the top clubs decided to break away 10 years or so ago, it was with the blessing of the FA, and this was acknowledged in the title of the FA Premier League. The initials FA have since fallen off and, last week, came a move to change the association's structure so that its control over the top clubs will be diluted. The FA's executive committee, now the top decision-makers, voted 8-3 in secret to form what they called a Professional Game Board to run club football.

For the sake of clarity, it may be worth pointing out at this stage that a game board bears no relation to a board game in which players depend on lucky throws of the dice, use make-believe money and tend to sulk and lose interest if the game is not going their way. On second thoughts, however...

But let's not mock a development that could be serious. In addition, there would be a National Game Board that would look after the rest of the game, and for the first time in history football would not have one controlling force.

That would not appeal to many observers, and it certainly does not appeal to Crozier. It appears that he did not want the vote taken but was overruled by the FA chairman, Geoff Thompson. I have no idea what political manoeuvring is going on, but it was reported that the professional members of the committee felt that amateurs should not have an equal say in any government of the professional game.

It would be helpful at this point to clarify what qualifies a man to call himself a professional. In football, I would consider the players who devote themselves to the game and its dangers and vicissitudes and the managers, coaches and administrators who are subject to the cruel impatience of the game to be professionals.

However, I am not sure that those directors who hold highly paid positions within a club are entitled to regard themselves in the same category. There is more to being a professional than drawing lumps of money from a club. Too many high-profile club board members speak as if they command specialised knowledge about how the game should be run. For some, it's like buying a commission in the army.

By the same token, the term "amateur" need not describe someone who has no knowledge or feeling for the game. Indeed, I welcome the objectivity and unselfishness a worthy amateur brings to the game's highest councils.

Last week's decisions have to be ratified at the meeting of the 90-member FA Council in December, and I'm sure we can expect a Crozier counterattack. He will be careful not to inflame his employers, but I hope he sees his duty to carry on. Not all his reforming work in the past two years or so has been enthusiastically welcomed. He has armed his critics with a move from the reassuring staidness of Lancaster Gate to a trendy HQ in Soho at more than twice the costs. He has boosted the size of his staff by a third, and his marketing and public relations departments have increased beyond the limit that many, including me, would consider necessary. But these are the accoutrements of modern business and if the costs of running the FA have soared from £43m to £93m in four years it is also true to say that the FA's income has climbed at an even faster rate.

This, particularly, is what grates with the clubs. While they are finding the economic going tougher, Crozier has been netting big deals for the England team; and using their players to do so. If the club's finances were as sound they would not be complaining. As it is, they want a share of the wealth the FA can create.

I believe that the FA has to show itself more interested in governing the game generally – the mess of Wimbledon's proposed move to Milton Keynes is evidence of its preoccupation with other matters – and that requires establishing priorities. Obviously, it has to optimise earning power in order to feed the grass roots from which everyone benefits, but the concentration should be in building a game for our heroes to play in.

Crozier has to establish himself as the man who can do that while keeping the clubs happy at the same time. It is an even harder task than Eriksson's – and that is saying something.

Pintor's tribute to Johnny Owen

One of sport's saddest stories will be uniquely commemorated on Saturday when a statue of Johnny Owen is unveiled in his native Merthyr Tydfil.

Owen died 22 years ago of brain injuries received in the ring when fighting for the world bantamweight championship in Los Angeles. The man performing the unveiling ceremony will be Lupe Pintor, the boxer who landed the fatal blows. When he arrives in Merthyr, Pintor will be welcomed by Owen's father, Dick, and there will be no awkwardness because forgiveness has long been granted.

Among the safety measures introduced after Owen's death were scanning procedures that would probably have revealed the skull weakness that led to his collapse in the 12th round. The undefeated British, Commonwealth and European champion, Owen had been holding his own for the first seven rounds but the superior right-hand punching power of Pintor began to tell thereafter.

The cost of the bronze statue, by James Done, has been raised by a public subscription which is still open at any HSBC branch, and the ceremony will take place after a service at the High Street Baptist Church at 12 noon.