The FA demanded written statements yesterday from Manchester United and Chelsea regarding Saturday's fracas at Stamford Bridge, but they must have done so with dread. A contradiction of verbal evidence is the disciplinary department's worst nightmare, doubly so when it comes to allegations of a racist nature.

The story is even more complicated because Patrice Evra, the United left back and alleged victim, was telling his own club on Sunday that he had not heard anything abusive. His ignorance seemed strange when set against his behaviour 24 hours earlier, charging furiously at the Chelsea groundstaff, during what was meant to be a routine warm-down.

It subsequently emerged that, whatever provocation he received, the full back had decided over the weekend to forget the matter, to pursue a quiet existence.

And if he wants to do so, should it not be left at that? Should we all not walk away? Well no, actually. Chelsea may believe that their man is innocent and United may have little desire in prosecuting the case, but all parties have a responsibility to ensure that it is investigated thoroughly now that a serious allegation has leaked out.

The Battle of the Bridge might seem an overinflated term for a brief fracas between half a dozen men and no one would prefer that it disappears more than the FA.

But as Joleon Lescott, the England and Everton defender, asked when a similar case came before the governing body last year, “what's the point in wearing a Kick It Out T-shirt?” What is the point, indeed, unless football vigorously pursues all such allegations?

Yesterday, the FA was egged on by a leader column in The Sun demanding “an instant ban for anyone involved”. To which one Soho Square official yesterday said, “If only it was that simple.”

The FA is still troubled by last year's case against Emre Belözoglu, the Newcastle United midfield player, who was accused by Everton players of making a racist remark against Joseph Yobo.

A charge was brought against Emre by the FA, but the discrepancy between “f***ing n*****”, which is what Tim Howard heard, and “f***ing negro”, Lescott's version, led an independent commission to decide that the case was not proven.

Another file was submitted by Watford against Emre, but the FA deemed it too hot to handle.

As a result, several Watford players recently declined to take part in an anti-racism promotion and those at Everton were also left fuming. It was then that Lescott asked his question about the T-shirt. Now the FA faces another test of its disciplinary procedures, in which one version of words will be set against another.

That it has even come before the FA tells us a lot about the frenzy of modern football. The allegations may not have surfaced at all were it not for an ugly tit for tat between teams competing for the title.

United were angry at what they perceived to be leaks from Chelsea about Rio Ferdinand's tantrum in the tunnel at Stamford Bridge and, in those circumstances, perhaps a counter-allegation was inevitable. But this was not a moral stance. Were the allegation not in the public domain, even United might prefer that it would go away.

Instead, the antipathy between the clubs is considerable, with Chelsea furious at what they regard as United's changing story. Had the London club had their way, a joint statement would have been released on Sunday night in which all suggestions of racist abuse would have been denied by both clubs.

United had originally seemed willing but that was because Evra had told his agent that nothing untoward had happened. But on Sunday, United discovered that there were different versions of what had gone on between the groundstaff and five of their players.

They decided that they could not put their name to a statement completely ruling out abuse against Evra. The Times understands that United's submission will include testimony that Evra was called an “immigrant”. There were suggestions yesterday that Chelsea would argue that the word “idiot” was simply misheard.

And the likely outcome? A case that no one wants, resulting, as with Emre, with nothing proven.

Trouble in store at Wembley?

Anecdotal evidence it may be, but of the four people I know who invested in debentures at the new Wembley Stadium, three are adamant that they will bale out when their ten-year deal ends. They would wriggle out tomorrow. So while the FA can be happy to have refinanced the £433million debt on the national stadium, an iceberg floats on the distant horizon.

I'd live with threats for £1.5m

How Wayne Rooney came to be represented by Paul Stretford, the agent, should have been turned into a movie. The story features Merseyside gangsters, covert recordings, death threats and an unsubstantiated allegation that Stretford once turned up at a meeting with a bag stuffed with £250,000 in cash.

This week comes the sequel as Stretford answers nine FA charges relating to his acquisition of Rooney as a client. If it all seems like a lot of trouble, just remember that Stretford's company, Proactive, made £1.5million simply for transferring the striker from Everton to Manchester United. We might all be prepared to endure a few death threats for that.

Semi-finals impossible to call

It is hard to remember two such difficult calls as the looming Champions League semi-finals. A week ago Manchester United were favourites to beat Barcelona, but they face the Catalan club this evening with Wayne Rooney hampered by injury and Cristiano Ronaldo fatigued. Liverpool's European prowess has to be set against Chelsea's healthy results under Avram Grant, the first-team coach.

It is enough to make you reverse an original prediction of a United-Liverpool final - the reds in Red Square - and plump for Chelsea against Barcelona, although not with any confidence. Turn off the phone, crack open a beer, sit back and enjoy - that is the only sound advice.