The Football Association has been something of a joke in recent times such as Mark Palios and Sven Goran Eriksson playing 'doctors and nurses' with a secretary whilst they were in powers of position at the federation.
However prior to that incident with Faria Alam, the FA have been involved in their share of controversy and they will continue to be involved in more as time progresses.
However it is disciplinary matters are at the forefront of their latest own goal as they asked Liverpool Football Club to explain their reasons for the public show of support for jailed supporter Michael Shields.
Shields has served three years of a 10 year sentence for a crime he maintains he didn't commit - something that was backed up by a signed confession from Graham Sankey who admits that it was he who attacked waiter Martin Georgiev in Bulgaria just days after the club's Champions League win in May 2005.
Michael's parents have been actively campaigning for his release since his incarceration and they were given a welcome boost by the club and its supporters on Monday night before the Premiership clash with West Ham United.
The Liverpool players wore t-shirts with the words 'Free Michael Now' over their training tops as they warmed up for the game.
Actress Sue Johnston joined Michael's parents to campaign for his release and during the first three minutes of the match the Kop held up red and white cards to form a mosaic spelling out 'Free Michael Now' in a plea to Justice secretary Jack Straw to pardon Shields ahead of the judicial review into his case tomorrow.
However the FA have demanded an explanation from the club as to why they did not consult the them about their intention to stage the show of support for Shields during the televised game.
This is the same FA that turned a blind eye to Liverpool's 'Truth Day' protest during an FA Cup tie in January 2007 where home supporters displayed a mosaic in retaliation to Kelvin Mackenzie, former editor of The Sun newspaper, following comments he made in relation to an article that the paper ran in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster.
Mackenzie allowed an article titled 'The Truth' to run as a front page headline which accused Liverpool supporters at the disaster, which claimed the lives of 96 Liverpool fans, of stealing from the dead and urinating on the corpses.
The protest against Mackenzie was broadcast on BBC One as the game was ongoing and commentator John Motson spoke highly of it as 40,000 Liverpool supporters chanted 'Justice for the 96' during the first six minutes of the game at Anfield.
The FA did not take issue with this incident and despite stating that they will not be charging Liverpool over their support of Michael Shields they did demand an explanation. What is the difference between protesting at the wrongful incarceration of a young football supporter and protesting against a contemptible gutter journalist for libellous comments he made about survivors of the worst football disaster in modern times?
Furthermore why did the FA not take issue with a similar show of support organised for Shields in August 2005 when Liverpool faced Sunderland in a Barclays Premier League match at which the Kop held up a mosaic that said 'Free Michael' prior to the game?
It appears that, as with everything to do with the FA, the goal posts have been shifted once again.
