The appointment of Sven Goran Eriksson was meant to have put a stop to all of this.
When the supposedly sophisticated Swede took control of the England national side in January 2001, he exuded a cultured cosmopolitanism that seemed to be at odds with the more unseemly side of the beautiful game.
But today that image lies in ruins, and the reputation of English football's governing body has been sullied with it.
Next month's emergency FA board meeting is likely to lance one boil by terminating the utterly obscene £4m-a-year contract signed by Eriksson in March.
But the removal of the national coach is merely a short-term solution to a long-term problem and, unless the FA agree to look at their own multiple shortcomings, we will all be here again in the future.
We have certainly been here in the past. Sir Alf Ramsey was the last England manager to be sacked because of bad results and, in the three decades since he was relieved of his duties, the national side has won precisely nothing.
Eriksson is merely the latest man to continue that trend but, instead of judging him on his lack of success on the pitch, the FA has chosen to pillory him for his lack of discretion off it.
The assorted bigwigs at Soho Square have been keen to emphasise the dismay they felt when the truth of Eriksson's affair with secretary Faria Alam became public knowledge.
Forced into a humiliating climb-down after issuing a public statement stressing Eriksson's innocence, FA chairman Geoff Thompson has initiated an inquiry that will investigate whether or not the Swede knowingly misled his employers.
But, rather than being consumed by the sordiness of the situation, there is a sense of the FA seeing Eriksson's indiscretion as a means to an end. This time, they can finally pin something on their man.
After all, it's not the first time he's been economical with the truth when it has come to his extra-marital affairs. His illicit liaisons with Ulrika Jonsson were exposed in 2002 after a mixture of silence and denials. But the FA backed their manager, arguing that his personal life did not affect the way he ran the English football team.
It's not just women Eriksson likes to jump into bed with. His relationship with billionaire Chelsea boss Roman Abramovich was so cosy that he was seen having intimate discussions with Blues' chief executive Peter Kenyon this year.
Again, the FA fell into line behind their boss, even offering him a £1m pay hike to make sure he didn't jump ship.
On both occasions the FA had sound reasons to end Eriksson's reign but, each time, they backed away from firing the bullet.
All the signs are that next month will be different, but what has changed? Has Eriksson's philandering become too much for an association willing to back their own chief executive after he admitted humiliatingly similar indiscretions?
Has the Swede's inability to utter the truth finally disgusted a body which has indulged his falsehoods and connivance in the past?
Or has his latest misdemeanour offered the FA an escape route when they are neither bold nor brave enough to pursue their preferred course of action?
Most England fans wanted Eriksson out in the aftermath of Euro 2004, but it had nothing to do with over-active office girls or little white lies. It was because, for the second tournament in a row, Eriksson had been found wanting on the biggest stage.
His tactics were inadequate and his substitutions were woeful. His man-management left a lot to be desired and his lack of passion or pride rankled. It looks like the FA felt the same but the prospect of a £14m pay off rendered them impotent.
If only there was some other way in which they could shuffle Eriksson aside without incurring an eight-figure bill and a reputation for being trigger-happy employers. Last weekend's newspaper headlines provided just that but, while Eriksson is likely to pay with his job, others will live to fight another day.
The people who hired the Swede for an exorbitant sum then refused to fire him after repeated failures will be free to make the same mistakes yet again.
It is to be hoped they all reflect on the part they have played in the latest sorry episode to sully the English game
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article