A difference of opinion is emerging from various sources about who should have made the decision in relation to the England Captaincy.

As a matter of fact it seems clear that the authority to act in the way that they did vested in the Football Association. Sir Ferguson believes that the most important person should always be the manager and that his decision should be final.

I have a degree of sympathy with this view but I think that he is really talking about the type of manager that wouldn’t have needed this sort of intervention in the first place.

In an age where football becomes more and more professional in the boardroom, clearer corporate lines of responsibility are bound to be the norm. We all know that football teams (whether national or club) are “brands” and the owners of those brands would be failing in their duty if they didn’t intervene to protect the brand. In this sense the hierarchy at the FA would have been failing in their duty to have not intervened. PR is so important nowadays and is something that some (mainly) older managers don’t consider enough.

Sir Ferguson may wish for the continuation of an age where the manager is truly King.

Meanwhile in Boston I wonder if certain people are wishing the opposite, as one of the greatest “brands” in world sport is tarnished by their manager King?