"Your game, your say, our goal"…"safe, positive, high-quality environment where everyone is given a chance to be the best they can be." It's the language of "taking action" rather than of taking action, and however good the intentions behind the plan may be, it seems to suggest that the whole thing is meant to function more as a marketing initiative than as a basis for purposeful change. To my mind, your very interesting point about how the plan restates existing budgeting as new investment strongly supports this interpretation.

If the project is being treated in large part as a marketing initiative, it makes sense to ask what it's selling, and in what context the marketing is taking place. And the context right now for the FA is that they've been battered to hell over McClaren, the Euro qualifying campaign, and the failure of youth development in England. I don't think it's crazy to read the marketing of the NGS as an attempt by the FA to rehabilitate its image in light of those recent catastrophes.

The decision to draw up the plan may have been made in 2005, but the decision about how to present the results is much more recent. And the NGS document's emphasis on youth development and on "what the FA is doing for you" seem very much a response to the FA's troubles in the present moment.

The NGS was in no means a reaction to England crashing out of Euro 2008. In fact, it was originally supposed to be finalised at the start of 2007 some 11 months and 12 games before they finished 3rd in their group. The planning and consultation started a year before, so the decision to put a strategy togetherwas taken some time in 2005.

The political correctness is also a bit of a red herring, from my understanding the FA wanted the NGS to be informed by the people affected by the National game. 'Young people' have never had an opportunity to give their opinion about how to develop the game that they play, in the years that the FA have devoted large sums of money to developing football. In emphasing race & disability the FA were showing that the game is for everyone.

The concept of grassroots isn't just about youth football, the vast majority of grassroots football (the FA is divided into the National game and the Professional game, as they have vastly differing needs from the FA) is played by adult males, on public pitches across the whole country.

The idea of the National Game Strategy is to provide a common direction to the multiple agencies that develop & participate in football, from youth football clubs, to adult non-league & amateur, & non-11-a-side games. Previously there were 40 odd counties with a similar amount of county sports departments & borough councils, as well as pro-club community departments each doing their own thing. It was a mess which is being sorted out.

Personally, I'm disappointed with the NGS. Aside from it taking way too long to be decided upon, it displays the fundemental flaw of modern strategies. It restates existing budgeted funding as new investment. As far as I can tell the FA aren't investing any more than they were committed to, and in fact the money stated is inflated by about a factor of 6. The FA invest an amount per annum in the Football Foundation, which is matched by Sport England (lottery funds) and the Premier League, this is then doubled by private investment (although it can come from public sources too), as the FF aim to fund 50% of a project with the average applicant finding the rest (often from other funding bodies).

It's fair to criticise the FA and the National Game strategy, but not for the reasons you suggest.