Britain’s Ambassador to Baghdad has joined the controversy over the Iraqi football star who was barred from playing in England because his country’s national team is not deemed good enough.

Christopher Prentice would not challenge the Home Office’s decision to deny Nashat Akram a work permit but told The Times: “I understand the pride which would be felt in Iraq to have a prominent Iraqi national player playing in the Premiership.”

Although ambassadors do not normally become involved in individual immigration cases, Mr Prentice said that he was taking a personal interest in Mr Akram’s because of the considerable political and public interest it has generated in Iraq.

Mr Akram, 23, briefly united a nation riven by sectarian conflict when he inspired Iraq to victory in last summer’s Asia Cup. He had hoped to join Sven-Göran Eriksson’s Manchester City, thereby becoming the first Iraqi to play in the Premiership. But the Home Office grants work permits only to internationals from the world’s 70 top countries and Iraq ranks 72nd.

That decision has caused considerable anger in Iraq. Many people regard it as a slight, and point out that their national team labours under a huge disadvantage because it has to train and play every match abroad due to violence at home.

Mr Akram, who plays in the United Arab Emirates, told The Times last night that he had received hundreds of messages of support from British and Iraqi football fans. “I hope the British Government can change its mind,” he said. “It would be good for Britain and it would be good for Iraq. Perhaps the problem can still be solved.”

The Iraqi Government is pressing the Home Office to reconsider. Jasem Mohammed Jaafar, the Sports and Youth Minister, told The Times: “It’s part of our duties to try everything possible to help Akram, because this wasn’t disappointing only for Akram himself, but for all the young people in Iraq who saw Akram as a hero.” He pointed out that Iraq had been ranked 68th when the Manchester City contract was first discussed.

In Britain Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Committee, has called the decision daft and urged Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, to review it.

He called Akram a “role model for his country whose presence here can heal divisions in Iraq”, adding: “Parliament has given ministers the right to exercise their discretion and they should use it. This case sends out all the wrong messages.” The controversy is doing nothing to improve Britain’s image amongst ordinary Iraqis.

“It made every one of us upset and angry with the British Government,” said Ali Abdullah, 54, a Baghdad taxi driver. “This man was representing all Iraqis and we were really proud of him and what they did disappointed us . . . They should stop linking everything to politics because their policy was the one that destroyed our life and our country in 2003.”

Mohamed Ahmed, 29, an engineer, asked: “Where is the freedom for which they invaded our country? This man was a hero representing the unity of Iraq and can’t be treated as a terrorist and to be banned from entering Britain. They made a big mistake by preventing him from playing there because they could show this as an example of the new Iraq for which they sent their troops and tanks. It’s completely unfair and disgraceful to treat such a great player this way.”

Times Recommends

• Heed the great stabiliser’s words
• How a voice for everyone led to stalemate
• Bakara market becomes a slaughterhouse