Racism in football is back in the news this week with the eight match ban handed down to Liverpool’s Luis Suarez for racially abusing Manchester United’s Patrick Evra and, today, the news that John Terry is facing criminal prosecution for allegedly racially abusing QPR's Anton Ferdinand.
The Football Association is just as much in the dock as its reputation and credibility is scrutinised at home and abroad. The stakes were raised last month when the FA spoke out at the apparent indifference towards racism in football by FIFA boss Sepp Blatter, after he claimed that racial abuse on the field could be dealt with by a handshake after the game.
The FA appear to have handled the Suarez case in accordance with the rules and appear only to have come to their judgement after much deliberation. It is sad that Suarez’s Liverpool team-mates and manager rallied round him without even slightest concern of his guilt. Wearing T-shirts in support of him undermines efforts to stamp out racism within the game. Let us just hope that at some stage in the future these same Liverpool players, who appear so quick to jump to Suarez’s defence, are not left annoyed with players of a rival team who rally round someone who has abused one of their own.
The John Terry incident raises even more serious questions. Obviously he is innocent until proven guilty, but it seems totally inappropriate for him to remain England captain whilst criminal charges hang over him. He was stripped of the captaincy after a Sunday newspaper exposed an extra-marital affair so it would only seem correct that he is once again forced to stand down as captain while charges of using racist language exist.
English football has done much to rid itself of racism over the last fifteen years and we can rightly boast to have the most pro-active national football association on this issue anywhere in Europe. The FA should act decisively over John Terry’s captaincy rather than be forced to act later under pressure. How can we seem to lecture other countries and FIFA if they fail to deal with this issue swiftly? If John Terry is found not guilty then he can regain the captaincy at some future date. If he has the interests of the game, and indeed the national team, at heart then he will also want to step aside as soon as possible.
Hope not hate
Showing posts with label Football Association. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Football Association. Show all posts
December 22, 2011
December 21, 2011
An emphatic stand against racism in English football
The men charged with one of the trickiest decisions in FA history were unequivocal
Negro or negrito, it doesn't really matter now. Sometimes it's not what you say so much as how you say it, and how many times you do so and the effect it is plainly having in the hair-trigger atmosphere of a match between such ferocious rivals as Liverpool and Manchester United. That certainly was the conclusion of the independent regulatory panel of three which last night accepted the allegations of Patrice Evra and banned Luis Suarez for eight matches.
As it did so it swept aside the sophistry of the brilliant Uruguayan's defence that he had done nothing worse than slip into a cultural divide, that what he said to an enraged opponent two months ago wouldn't have raised the eyebrow of a black compatriot back home in Montevideo.
It is the kind of argument which can hold up a court for some time – as it did in this minefield of a case which represented such a huge challenge to the nerve and the working morality of the rulers of the game in this country – but had it been accepted the chances of success in similar prosecutions in the future would have slumped to around zero.
There would have been a precedent for the niceties of one man's understanding of what might constitute a serious offence against the pride and the dignity of another. Instead, the judgement was that if Suarez had offended in a way that may have been subtler than when he bit an opponent in the Dutch league – and earned the nickname of the Cannibal of Ajax – he had still crossed an unacceptable line.
The implications are heavy for anyone who, had the outcome been different last night, might have been tempted to join in any regression to the days when racism was such a harsh reality in the English football.
Certainly, although John Terry denies the allegations, it might create a new level of tension for the Chelsea and England captain, who awaits the deliberations of the Crown Prosecution Service as it weighs the evidence in the charge of Anton Ferdinand that he too was a victim of racial abuse.
The adjudicating panel was led by QC Paul Goulding but it is hard not to believe that he received powerful underpinning from his colleague Denis Smith.
A magnificent centre-half for Stoke, and a manager who knew both success and failure, Smith went into the hearing under the bizarre suggestion that an old professional connection with Sir Alex Ferguson's son, Darren, might make him a less than impartial arbiter. For anyone who knew him, the theory might have been etched crudely in crayon rather than tweeted. Indeed, Smith's long, injury-strewn but superbly indefatigable involvement in the hard end of professional footballer made him eminently qualified to note the difference between nuances of language, and intention, and the realities of serious provocation and insult.
Even so the long days of deliberation suggest a near forensic examination of the claims and counter-claims. Surely, it had to be so.
That Evra had once had a similar charge to the one he made against Saurez rejected, and had evidence at another hearing categorised as "unreliable" no doubt emboldened Liverpool's defence of their outstanding player. It is also true that last night's verdict could easily have been shrouded in inconclusive platitudes and irresolute action.
Instead, the men charged with arguably one of the trickiest decisions in the history of FA discipline were unequivocal. Liverpool, predictably, are indignant and last night issued a powerful statement of rebuttal. From the tone of it, it would be surprising if they do not take advantage of the two-week suspension of Suarez's sentence which allows for an appeal.
Liverpool said the decision was extraordinary in that the issue had come down to the word of Evra against Saurez's and that their player had no record of racism, pointing out his mixed-race heritage. They also cited Evra's comment that he did not regard Saurez as a racist.
So what was the accusation against Saurez? It was one with which the panel concurred. He was guilty of misconduct and insulting behaviour and the use of racist language. You could translate that into some mild attempt at incitement to a loss of control in a player with whom you were engaged in a desperate battle for advantage. You could also say that in another context Saurez would have been guilty of nothing more than "cultural" clumsiness.
The decision was, however, much more emphatic. It said that Saurez had succeeded in inflaming his opponent in a calculated and unacceptable way. This could create an interminable argument about cause and effect but the gut instinct here is that a difficult but vital stand has been made. And, you may ask, against what precisely? Hopefully, it is the idea that racism, however it manifests itself, is in English football not consigned to the past.
Independent
Negro or negrito, it doesn't really matter now. Sometimes it's not what you say so much as how you say it, and how many times you do so and the effect it is plainly having in the hair-trigger atmosphere of a match between such ferocious rivals as Liverpool and Manchester United. That certainly was the conclusion of the independent regulatory panel of three which last night accepted the allegations of Patrice Evra and banned Luis Suarez for eight matches.
As it did so it swept aside the sophistry of the brilliant Uruguayan's defence that he had done nothing worse than slip into a cultural divide, that what he said to an enraged opponent two months ago wouldn't have raised the eyebrow of a black compatriot back home in Montevideo.
It is the kind of argument which can hold up a court for some time – as it did in this minefield of a case which represented such a huge challenge to the nerve and the working morality of the rulers of the game in this country – but had it been accepted the chances of success in similar prosecutions in the future would have slumped to around zero.
There would have been a precedent for the niceties of one man's understanding of what might constitute a serious offence against the pride and the dignity of another. Instead, the judgement was that if Suarez had offended in a way that may have been subtler than when he bit an opponent in the Dutch league – and earned the nickname of the Cannibal of Ajax – he had still crossed an unacceptable line.
The implications are heavy for anyone who, had the outcome been different last night, might have been tempted to join in any regression to the days when racism was such a harsh reality in the English football.
Certainly, although John Terry denies the allegations, it might create a new level of tension for the Chelsea and England captain, who awaits the deliberations of the Crown Prosecution Service as it weighs the evidence in the charge of Anton Ferdinand that he too was a victim of racial abuse.
The adjudicating panel was led by QC Paul Goulding but it is hard not to believe that he received powerful underpinning from his colleague Denis Smith.
A magnificent centre-half for Stoke, and a manager who knew both success and failure, Smith went into the hearing under the bizarre suggestion that an old professional connection with Sir Alex Ferguson's son, Darren, might make him a less than impartial arbiter. For anyone who knew him, the theory might have been etched crudely in crayon rather than tweeted. Indeed, Smith's long, injury-strewn but superbly indefatigable involvement in the hard end of professional footballer made him eminently qualified to note the difference between nuances of language, and intention, and the realities of serious provocation and insult.
Even so the long days of deliberation suggest a near forensic examination of the claims and counter-claims. Surely, it had to be so.
That Evra had once had a similar charge to the one he made against Saurez rejected, and had evidence at another hearing categorised as "unreliable" no doubt emboldened Liverpool's defence of their outstanding player. It is also true that last night's verdict could easily have been shrouded in inconclusive platitudes and irresolute action.
Instead, the men charged with arguably one of the trickiest decisions in the history of FA discipline were unequivocal. Liverpool, predictably, are indignant and last night issued a powerful statement of rebuttal. From the tone of it, it would be surprising if they do not take advantage of the two-week suspension of Suarez's sentence which allows for an appeal.
Liverpool said the decision was extraordinary in that the issue had come down to the word of Evra against Saurez's and that their player had no record of racism, pointing out his mixed-race heritage. They also cited Evra's comment that he did not regard Saurez as a racist.
So what was the accusation against Saurez? It was one with which the panel concurred. He was guilty of misconduct and insulting behaviour and the use of racist language. You could translate that into some mild attempt at incitement to a loss of control in a player with whom you were engaged in a desperate battle for advantage. You could also say that in another context Saurez would have been guilty of nothing more than "cultural" clumsiness.
The decision was, however, much more emphatic. It said that Saurez had succeeded in inflaming his opponent in a calculated and unacceptable way. This could create an interminable argument about cause and effect but the gut instinct here is that a difficult but vital stand has been made. And, you may ask, against what precisely? Hopefully, it is the idea that racism, however it manifests itself, is in English football not consigned to the past.
Independent
Liverpool furious as Luis Suárez banned in Patrice Evra racism row
- Striker set to miss eight games and is fined £40,000
- Liverpool consider appeal against striker's conviction
In a statement that also calls for the FA to press charges against Evra, Liverpool described themselves as "surprised and disappointed" with the "extraordinary" decision to find Suárez guilty of aiming racist abuse at the Senegal-born Frenchman during the 1-1 draw at Anfield on 15 October.
Their manager, Kenny Dalglish, tweeted: "Very disappointed with today's verdict. This is the time when @luis16suarez needs our full support. Let's not let him walk alone. KD"
The club are considering an appeal, with the punishment suspended and Suárez free to play until the process is completed, and the wording of their statement makes it clear they will not contemplate taking their own disciplinary action against a player who is understood to have admitted calling his opponent a "negro".
"We find it extraordinary that Luis can be found guilty on the word of Patrice Evra alone when no one else on the field – including Evra's own team-mates and all the match officials – heard the alleged conversation between two players in a crowded Kop goalmouth while a corner-kick was about to be taken," the statement said.
"It is our strong belief, having gone over the facts of the case, that Luis Suárez did not commit any racist act. It is also our opinion that the accusation by this particular player was not credible – certainly no more credible than his prior unfounded accusations."
That was a reference to Evra's disciplinary case in 2008 when he was banned for four matches and fined £15,000 after an altercation with a Chelsea groundsman. The FA hearing at the time ruled his evidence was "exaggerated and unreliable" and Liverpool made a great point of focusing on this during the Suárez case.
However, the FA's three-man independent commission, led by Paul Goulding QC, did not accept Suárez's argument that the words he used were perfectly acceptable for someone from Uruguay, a defence of culture and semantics that has led to it being described as one of the more complex cases ever to fall under the remit of the FA's disciplinary unit. Suárez said on Twitter: "Today is a very difficult and painful day for both me and my family. Thanks for all the support, I'll keep working!"
There was no apology and it soon became apparent why as Liverpool turned the focus back on to the man who made the allegation. "It is key to note that Patrice Evra himself in his written statement in this case said: 'I don't think that Luis Suárez is racist'. The FA in their opening remarks accepted that Luis Suárez was not racist," their statement said.
"Luis himself is of a mixed-race family background as his grandfather was black. He has been personally involved since the 2010 World Cup in a charitable project which uses sport to encourage solidarity amongst people of different backgrounds with the central theme that the colour of a person's skin does not matter; they can all play together as a team.
"We do not recognise the way in which Luis Suárez has been characterised. It appears to us that the FA were determined to bring charges against Luis Suárez, even before interviewing him at the beginning of November.
"Nothing we have heard in the course of the hearing has changed our view that Luis Suárez is innocent of the charges brought against him and we will provide Luis with whatever support he now needs to clear his name. We would also like to know when the FA intend to charge Patrice Evra with making abusive remarks to an opponent after he admitted himself in his evidence to insulting Luis Suárez in Spanish in the most objectionable of terms. Luis, to his credit, actually told the FA he had not heard the insult."
Evra had reportedly pushed away Suárez's hand when the Uruguayan attempted to pat him on the head and used words to the Liverpool player along the lines of: "Don't touch me, you South American." Liverpool have asked the FA to issue the same charges that have now led to Suárez's reputation being tarnished.
The FA's hearing, that began last Wednesday, had ruled that Suárez used "insulting words" that "included a reference to Mr Evra's colour". The full written reasons will be provided to Liverpool in the next few days and they will have 14 days to appeal. However, if they were to lose an appeal Suárez could potentially face an even longer ban. In the meantime Suárez is set to play in the league fixture at Wigan Athletic on Wednesday.
Guardian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
