Why Was England Coach Mark Sampson Sacked?

Paul Sorene

29th, September 2017


Why Was Coach Mark Sampson Sacked? by Christina Sommers


Of course, when one man has a lot of controversies hanging around him, he is supposed to get the boots. This becomes even imperative when this man has a career that brings him into constant contact with the opposite. This may be one of the most difficult jobs to handle and come out unscathed in the present day western world.

Just yesterday, the English FA released a statement that they have sacked the coach of the female national team. They claimed that the contract between them and the 34 year old got terminated after they received a report about his time at the Bristol Academy.

He was the manager of the Bristol Academy before England hired him to take charge of their female team in 2013. However, midway into his job with the English FA in 2014, there were allegations of safeguarding against the man. However, the Bristol Academy took a look at that allegation, investigated the claims and came out with a report that it does not pose any risk to his job as a coach.

However, the FA went ahead to posit that they worked on that recommendation from Bristol Academy and kept Sampson. But they only got hold of the full report of the investigation last week, and according to them, there were undeniable evidence of misconducts when he was at Bristol. They posited that his actions as revealed to them are completely unacceptable as a coach and so he has to go.

However, just like football odds, you cannot isolate the man from his antecedents as he has also caused a lot of controversies within the period he was the English FA women’s coach.  There is still a brewing issue between the coach and two players.

Last year, one of the regulars in the team was dropped, and when she alleged persecution, full investigation was commenced. During the period of the investigation, Eniola Aluko and Spence of the English female team and Chelsea, both reported some inappropriate comments and remarks by the coach. Eniola posited that in the build up to a big game, the coach asked them about their family members that may be coming to watch them. When she told the coach she has some people coming from Nigeria, he said, ‘hope they are not bringing Ebola’?

Spence on her angle posited that the coach referred to her when she was making explanations of police arrests. He asked her whether she has been arrested before in a stance that suggested profiling.

The FA did their investigation and cleared him of any misconduct on these charges after he denied all of them. But the truth may be coming out now, and the FA may have sacked Sampson in the bid to save face, and are flaunting another reason for that.

The statement by the FA in anticipation of these conclusions also says a lot. For them, he has been cleared by the barrister Katharine Newton’s investigation, and that the FA does not find him guilty of any wrongdoing in the Eniola and Spence case. However, they accepted that new evidence has been presented in this, and that they are living the independent investigation to look into it.

But we know how Chelsea has been using ‘mutual consent’ to sack coaches since its new era, and how Mourinho has come out to say that there is nothing like that. He says that coaches are sacked, and there is nothing about consent.

The English FA might just have saved face with this.

Posted in Betting & predictions, England, Women's Football

Share this article: Email


  1. Beano says:

    That a guest spot by Christina Hoff Sommers? If so, random, but cool.

    Thanks for the article.

  2. Stu says:

    Did anyone proof / edit this article before it was published?

  3. Jay says:

    This is basically a list of 2-3 facts bound together with insinuations and an uncompelling narrative only found in regular middle-aged pub chat. I can’t see how the writer has added any value to any of the evidence available on this. It’s also relatively incoherent with no real focal point (e.g. the switch up at the end to talking about mutual consent).

    Perhaps I was a touch naive to expect some brilliant investigative journalism here on Pies but at the very least I was hoping for some of the humour, unique perspective and panache of typical Pies articles.

    Overall this is very poor content that doesn’t fit with Pies and should not be here. If you’re going to try and mix it up have something unique, interesting, compelling or even bold. This is neither.

  4. JP says:

    bloody hell, this is a mess. Nigh on unreadable.

  5. Jimbob says:

    However. However. However. But.

  6. Ronny says:

    Eeeeeeek that was a difficult read/attempt at reading

  7. R93 says:

    Reeks a little bit of paid for content, that random football odds link is a bit dubious.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Dreadful writing, my head hurts.

Leave a Reply