Real Bedford FC chairman charged by FA over gun photo says he wanted to “spark debate”

Real Bedford co-owner and chairman, Peter McCormack has ignited a new controversy after publicly denying an FA charge of ‘bringing the game into disrepute’ after an image of him holding an AR-15 assault rifle appeared inside a Real Bedford matchday programme.

The FA say the charge falls under Section E3.1 of an FA Code of Conduct, which says, ‘A participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute’.

McCormack has hit back stating on social media that, ‘The FA’s decision to sanction me for this photo violates Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which concerns freedom of expression.’

The charge follows the Women’s National League Cup Determining Round tie against Milton Keynes Dons on 28 August with McCormack additionally charged by the FA for, ‘using foul and abusive language’, aimed at the manager of MK Dons Women on social media.

A new rivalry on the pitch has emerged between Real Bedford and MK Dons Women’s sides after Real attracted former Dons manager, Charlie Bill to the Ledger Stadium, alongside several players.

However, it is for the disrepute charge that McCormack has been most vocal.

Responding to questions from Bedford Independent, including how the image may affect younger fans, Mr McCormack acknowledged the concerns the image raised but wanted to ‘spark a necessary debate’.

Not an endorsement of violence

“I understand the concerns raised regarding the image in question, particularly in how it may be perceived by younger fans”, said McCormack.

“However, I want to clarify the intention behind the image.

“We live in a time where liberty, free speech, and personal expression are increasingly under threat. The image was provocative by design, meant to spark a necessary debate around these critical issues.

“In the context of this image, where I am holding a peace sign alongside the gun, the symbolism is entirely different. It’s a representation of free speech and the right to provoke thought, not an endorsement of violence.

“I do not advocate for a change to the UK’s gun laws, and I appreciate the strict regulations we have. However, I do believe in the power of provocation to encourage meaningful discussion about the freedoms we hold dear.

“If any child or parent is concerned or has questions about the image, I am more than willing to have an open dialogue to explain its intent and the importance of the conversation around free expression.”

The sanction for any such breach is not clear.

Both the Football Association and Bedfordshire FA were approached for comment. The Football Association told us to contact Bedfordshire FA, who did not respond to our request for comment despite being given an extended deadline.

However, the FA website states, ‘Where two or more Participants from a Club commit any Aggravated Breach of Rule E3.1 in any twelve months, the Club itself will be liable to a sanction imposed by a Regulatory Commission’.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), protects an individual’s freedom of expression without interference by a public authority.