Sir Alex Ferguson, the Manchester United manager, will appear before an FA disciplinary commission in London today to answer a charge of improper conduct relating to his verbal attack on Alan Wiley, the referee, last month.

Ferguson accused the referee of not being fit enough after United’s 2-2 draw at home to Sunderland on October 3. So does he have a point, or does he need a dressing-down? The Times assesses the arguments.

The case for

Ferguson has already apologised twice for his remarks about Wiley. First, via the club’s website, when he spoke of his regret at the personal nature of the attack and then through a letter to the FA, where he addressed the matter in more detail.

He has shown some remorse, even if Alan Leighton, the head of Prospect, the referees’ union, claimed the apology was “half-hearted”, and that should also be considered.

Official ProZone statistics may suggest that Ferguson was wrong to call Wiley’s fitness into question, but on the wider issue of the fitness of top-flight referees, does the United manager have a point?

Ferguson’s criticism of referees often serves as a smokescreen to mask the failings of his team on those occasions when they fail to live up to the standards he demands, but as someone who has overseen so many football matches, are his views not worthy of further examination?

The number of high-profile errors made by referees this season certainly gives credence to Ferguson’s view that standards need to improve. The penalty awarded to Liverpool against Birmingham City this week, when David Ngog’s dive was missed by Peter Walton, the referee, is a case in point.

The FA was urged to instigate an overhaul of the system for training and assessing referees this year, after a highly critical report by the League Managers Association and Professional Footballers’ Association insisted that changes were essential.

The report claimed the existing system lacked coherence and has failed to embrace changes in technology. It recommended the introduction of “tests of competence” for match officials and the creation of a referees’ academy for training, as well as a fast-track route for former players who want to take up the job and a new complaints procedure. So maybe Ferguson has a point?

The case against

Ferguson can argue all he wants that refereeing standards in general need to improve, but his suggestion that Wiley “just wasn’t fit enough” was, first and foremost, a baseless accusation.

Official ProZone statistics for Wiley showed that the referee ran farther than all but four United players during the 94 minutes of the game against Sunderland.

He outdistanced the average player by 205.8 metres and covered 11,039.1 metres in total, the eighth farthest of any individual on the pitch.

The personal nature of Ferguson’s attack not only damaged Wiley’s reputation but ensured that the referee would have to put up with no end of taunts about his size and fitness from the terraces, undermining not only his credibility but his confidence, too.

Furthermore, Ferguson’s remarks flew in the face of the FA’s Respect campaign, which has sought to address unacceptable behaviour in football on and off the field, not least the treatment of referees. On average, 7,000 quit every year because of the abuse they receive from players, managers and coaches.

As arguably the most high-profile manager in the Barclays Premier League, Ferguson should be setting a good example, not least to youngsters. Instead, others may attempt to use Ferguson’s behaviour as an excuse to justify their actions.

If Ferguson did not have history, the tide against him may not be so strong but the United manager has made an unfortunate habit of castigating officials, often in an attempt, it seems, to deflect attention away from his team on those occasions when they have lost.

The Wiley affair did not stop him questioning whether Andre Marriner had sufficient experience to referee a United-Liverpool fixture after his team’s 2-0 defeat at Anfield last month, while Martin Atkinson, who has come under fire from Ferguson in the past, was heavily criticised for allowing a controversial free kick from which Chelsea scored the only goal in United’s 1-0 loss at Stamford Bridge last weekend.

Last season, Ferguson was given a two-match touchline ban and fined £10,000 for storming on to the pitch to confront Mike Dean at the end of United’s 4-3 win against Hull City at Old Trafford. What, then, will it take to discourage Ferguson from raging against officials in the future?

Manager’s day in the dock

• The FA disciplinary panel will be chaired by either a senior FA councillor, such as Maurice Armstrong, the chairman of the disciplinary committee, or a barrister such as Peter Griffiths, QC, but probably not Nicholas Stewart, QC, an Arsenal supporter, whose presence on the panel that banned Patrice Evra for four matches this year upset Ferguson (Nick Szczepanik writes).

• In addition, at least one other FA councillor, such as Barry Bright, will be present, along with a member of the FA football panel — a former player, manager or administrator such as Graham Taylor or Gary Mabbutt. An interesting new name recently added to the 14-man rotation is that of Colin Murdock, the former Preston North End and Northern Ireland defender, who is now a trainee solicitor at George Davies, the Manchester firm — although as a former United player, he might not be thought impartial.

• Any punishment is at the discretion of the panel — from a warning or reprimand to a fine or touchline ban, even if the offence did not take place on the touchline.