So the Football Association's judgement is in - or, at least, is in until Liverpool appeal which they inevitably will do. Luis Suarez has been found guilty. I wrote this piece at the time (if you are interested in background). As I said at that time, if Suarez is found guilty he should receive ''substantial punishment - I would guess some level of a fine, suspension and some kind of community service''. A rare level of prescience on this blog.
So let us look at the charge in-depth:
The telling extract is:
The Independent Regulatory Commission announced its decision on 20 December 2011, which is as follows:
1. Mr. Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match contrary to rule E3(1);
2. the insulting words used by Mr. Suarez included a reference to Mr. Evra's colour within the meaning of Rule E3(2);
3. Mr Suarez shall be warned as to his future conduct, be suspended for eight matches covering all first team competitive matches and fined the sum of £40,000;
4. the (penalty) is suspended pending the outcome of any appeal lodged by Mr Suarez against this decision.
Let's leave the finances to one side. £40,000 is nothing to Luis Suarez, I'd guess, and seems (if anything) low.
Moving to the ban, on the one hand, eight games seems particularly harsh. I cannot think of many times when an individual has been given longer bans for on-field behaviour (two that spring to mind: Cantona attacking a fan got an eight month ban; Ben Thatcher got an eight game ban - plus a fifteen game ban which was suspended for two years - for his attempted decapitation of Pedro Mendes). On the other hand, given the seriousness of the offence - and that the FA are increasingly and rightly pushing an anti-racism agenda - seems lenient. The important thing isn't whether it is harsh or lenient but, as ever, whether it is just. We'll come onto that below.
I've been asked by a few folk as a - their quote, not mine - ''sensible Liverpool fan'' for my views on the matter. Without seeing the evidence and reasoning, I'm not sure what I (or anyone else) can add. With that in mind, what can I add?
So, first up, plenty of people have come out with the fairly nebulous phrase ''well, if a fan did that he'd be banned for life''. Yes, I suppose if you are a tedious ''lock 'em up and throw away the key sort' but...
Firstly, we generally recognise and accept (in England) that the behaviour of players on a football pitch is treated differently from the actions of people on the street. Whether that is right or wrong is a matter for debate but, by and large, we do not press criminal charges against individuals who commit crimes on a football pitch. (Exhibit A: Roy Keane admitting he set out to assault Alf Inge Haaland would undoubtedly have been either assault or grievous bodily harm if it had occurred off the pitch).
Secondly, as above, and more importantly, as the sage of Tupelo put it, only fools rush in. We just don't know enough to comment whether or not this is a fair judgement. Those Manchester United fans and Everton fans crowing should cool their beans until the appeal is heard. Those Liverpool fans talking about conspiracy theories should, again, cool their beans until we see the evidence that is apparently going to be presented. Hopping back, as promised, whether this is a just decision at this stage we cannot know. We have not seen much of the detail, we haven't seen the reasoning or the evidence. As the IRC admits at this stage.
The Independent Regulatory Commission will provide written reasons for its decision in due course setting out:
(a) the findings of fact made by it;
(b) the reasons for its decision finding the charge proved; and
(c) the reasons for the penalty.
Until we hear (or read) a, b and c it is almost impossible to comment on whether or not this charge is either harsh or lenient or, for that matter, just.
Thirdly, I'm not sure how the FA deals with racism but one might contend that racism is not (if you'll pardon the pun) black and white. I think we can agree that certain racist terms are worse than others and, if we agree that, we might say that certain things may be punished more harshly or more leniently. People calling for X ban for racism are foolhardy - not because their motivation is bad (it isn't) but rather because we acknowledge that their should be some level of discretion when giving punishments. Let's do a little thought experiment. Imagine the following examples:
- A white player doing a Nazi salute to Tottenham fans. We might agree that this is anti-semitic or, at least, extremely offensive. (I don't have space to get into the is anti-semitism actually racism debate here...)
- A black footballer calling a white footballer ''a white bastard'' We might agree that this was racist.
- A white footballer calling a Hispanic footballer ''a spic''. We might agree that this was racist.
- A black footballer calling a Hispanic footballer ''a fucking spic''. We might agree that this was racist.
- A white footballer calling a black footballer ''a fucking dirty nigger''. We might agree that this was racist
It is one of the complexities of life that racists don't always use racist language and sadly, sometimes, people who are not racists can use racist language. Both Evra, and the FA, (according to the Liverpool statement... which we'll come to) have said that they do not believe that Suarez is a racist. Either way using racist term is offensive whether the motivation behind it is racist or not.
Moving swiftly on, out of the jaws of a defeat, Liverpool FC seem to be seeking utter humiliation. The club's statement released this evening - to be frank - was embarrassing (I doubt/hope that it will not be up tomorrow morning). Some of it was sensible, some of it was an understandable reaction to support the team's star player but some of it is bonkers. This response smacks of two things either (a) the club thinks that the FA has stuffed this up so spectacularly badly that they can go full guns blazing at this (b) the PR team didn't have a cooling off cigarette before publishing. I fear the latter.
Regardless: This story is going to run and run and it will only become more acrimonious. Liverpool are going to appeal and will push, I'd guess, for some form of punishment of Evra for his admission of using abusive language to Suarez (I hope they don't pursue the latter - I'm not sure it will be particularly helpful to anyone). Legitimate questions will be asked about why this took so long, why it was delayed and the basis for the ban. Eyes will turn to John Terry whose case prima facie looks more clear cut than this one. The FA may well have made a rod for their own backs. Can you imagine the howls of outrage from Liverpool - and, for that matter, Chelsea's competitors in the league - if Terry doesn't get any sort of ban or gets a two match ban? Can you imagine the media storm if the England captain gets banned for eight games?
Given the FA's recent use of the ''he's our best player so can we please get a reduction in the punishment'' defence for Rooney, it may be that Suarez's ban will be reduced. That said, the simple fact is if Suarez did racially abuse Evra - although I think, at this stage, the charge seems somewhat ambiguous and we haven't seen the evidence - then he should be harshly but justly treated.
It is a shame for my club to lose our star player for eight games. It is a shame for the Premier League to lose a player of his quality for eight games. I'm not sure that those are good enough reasons not to hand out a lengthy ban and, without prejudicing the appeal when the matter is sub judice, it is a shame that so many are looking at this issue through club-tinted spectacles.
RCM
20 comments:
I know this doesn't relate to the main argument, and I'm not having a go when I make this point, but regarding your statement on whether anti-semitism is racism; how is it not?
The most infamous case of anti-semitism (that of the Nazi's) was based almost entirely on the belief of the inferiority of the Jewish race and their potential to "infect" the Nordic/Arian race. Sounds pretty damn racist to me.
I agree - and this isn't really the point of the piece, or the place - but there is a significant strain of thinking that says anti-semitism and racism are distinct things.
I don't agree but thought I should at least nod to it in the piece.
Yeah I wasn't going to bring it up but it just seemed weird, can't say I've really heard that one before. Obviously if you're criticising the religion itself that's different, but most, if not all anti-semitism I've encountered has been racially motivated in some way.
But as you said, not the time or the place. Great article anyway, I hope it's read by plenty of people.
An interesting read. It's nice to see a level-headed approach to this subject.
With racism, context is a major issue I feel.
Which I *think* may be the case with John Terry's case. If he simply called Ferdinand a black cunt/bastard/whatever, yeah, fair enough. But, I read that he was actually saying something like "do you think I called you a black cunt/bastard?". If misconstrued, it's slightly understandable that that could be seen as racism.
Do I like Terry? No, I think he's a prick.
Would I like to see him banned for racism? Yes, as I think he's a prick and would only prove further that he is.
Would I like to see him wrongly banned for racism? Not a chance.
*I'm actually guessing, I've seen/read little of the incident
Could you please clarify as to what you mean by anti-semitism not being racism cos I'd rather not read your website,twitter or blog again if you do not count it as racism.Jews are a religion AND a race so it IS racism.If you think otherwise I don't think that you are any better than those who likened the use of the word 'negro' to calling a white person 'caucasian'.
Angels/pins. The modern theology of "racism" is tedious and stupid. Once "racism" was a nasty doctrine used to justify violence, murder and so forth against innocent victims; now it has been trivialised so that pseudo courts make absurd distinctions, such as that it's OK to call someone a "South American" but wicked to reply that "You're a Negro", or whatever was said. Well my Dad's bigger than your Dad. What a lot of bollocks. I dare say that what Suarez said was more ill-mannered than what Evra said, and perhaps more likely to cause hurt feelings, but since there appear to be no witnesses, how the hell can anyone tell?
@Heyfoxymophandlemama,that's me! said...
I can only presume that you took over half an hour to write your comment and missed Rob Marrs post that made it even clearer that he is of the same mind as yourself. I think the tone of the piece made that quite clear in itself but the additional comment leaves no doubt.
It seems odd to me that stamping on someone's knee in an attempt to injure them may net you a two match ban, but calling them a black bastard (or whatever) is worth eight.
For what it's worth, I think the FA (and UEFA and FIFA) should be tougher on racism (and dissent towards referees, and foul and abusive language on the pitch generally), but this seems ludicrously harsh. Christ, if he'd boosted a telly during the riots he'd have got less.
One small prediction: John Terry will not get an eight match ban. Suarez is an easy target, because he's foreign and you know, a cheating dago. Despite his massive talent, only Liverpool fans will mourn his suspension. The FA will not shoot themselves in the foot by publicly hanging out their national team captain to dry.
My comment (WeeJock) on the Football Ramble, won't repeat word for word here:
http://www.thefootballramble.com/forum/viewthread/5428/P120/
I agree on all points Rob - one thing I do wonder is exactly how Liverpool's defence for Suarez - that these terms genuinely have different connotations in Uruguay (in a way that remains relevant - somehow - despite Suarez' career in the Netherlands) - was or could be taken into account by the FA.
I do think such a defence might be reasonably deployed in mitigation - but it worries me that many (not you) seem to think that, if true, it should establish that Suarez is 'not guilty'. Words can be offensive and racially abusive without genuinely malicious intent, and the lack of intent does not exclude the fact that a player can be morally culpable of extreme negligence if they use words which are deeply offensive in the context in which they were uttered (and, incidentally, most contexts) even if that player intended them to be less offensive. I honestly suspect that most racists do not intend their comments to be taken as offensively as they are (isn't that the age-old racist self-justification about everyone being hyper-sensitive and obsessed with 'political correctness'?) The FA and Evra accept that Suarez is not himself a racist, so clearly some framework along these lines is in play, but I hope the eventual written explanation indicates exactly how.
Also, as someone who is both half-Jewish and who spends my life working on the dynamics of discriminatory mass violence, I am happy to emphasise the validity of noting the (completely innocuous) debate about whether anti-Semitism is a form of, or something distinct from, racism. This debate involves no-one claiming that anti-Semitism is less bad that racism, it is a sociological debate about the nature of Semitic identity and the roots of anti-Semitic activities throughout history.
I've seen a few here call this a great article. It's not a great article, far from it. The author completely overlooks the fact that the alleged 'racism' was spoken in Spanish, and in the mother tongue of Mr. Suarez what was spoken was not a racist term. Who is to say that the FA haven't completely cocked up here? Who is to say that by dismissing Mr. Suarez defense and culture that the FA haven't been racist towards Mr. Suarez? Why is there no recommendation from this apparent esteemed and expert panel that Evra be charged for using foul and abusive language to Mr. Suarez? Sorry, but since when have two wrongs made a right? If reports are to be believed, Mr. Evra insulted Mr. Suarez about his South American heritage. Liverpool FC have every right to challenge this and their statement should be applauded. I'd suggest that the author is an armchair Liverpool fan, not a real supporter because if he were a real supporter he'd know that a club like Liverpool FC are not in the business of backing racists or giving full backing to players or individuals who do not merit it. Be very very careful of what you write about this case, because I can assure you that been wrongly labelled a racist is worth a lot of money in the court of law, which is where I see this case heading. I just hope for the FA's sake that their evidence is compelling and watertight. Because if it's not they've just committed public suicide.
Because, fussballer, we await the evidence to be published.
That said, I did write extensively on that matter here (linked to in the piece):
http://leftbackinthechangingroom.blogspot.com/2011/10/suarez-and-evra.html
RCM
Fussballer - Hahahahaha, they supported Fowler with the line sniffing, Diouf with the spitting, I could go on and on and on. Be careful that the moral high-ground that LFC fans love to inhabit doesn't crumble away.
Top post Rob!
What is sid on the pitch should stay on the pitch. What about all mama comments all over the field? Are we gonna ban all the fans taunting?
And 8 games, how convienient from Mr. Bernstein (former chairman of ManCity board) that in 8 games City will play Liverpool 3 times. Lex Rooney spring to mind for the "what fuckin what"-incident.
FA is "painting themselveves into a corner"(swedish expression, that I can´t translate)
-Manchester United fan
Nice post Rob. Interesting thoughts, and nice to hear from a "sensible Liverpool fan". I'm having arguments left right and centre about this, with other Liverpool fans, who are completely blind to the greater agenda. Do you even think that whether what Suarez was intentionally racist or not is relevant? Surely what is relevant is that he is in an elevated position and therefore has a responsibility to steer well clear of any such language. I think the ban is completely fair, and a message to the rest of the league.
If, sorry WHEN, LFC appeal, what do you see the outcome being?
I am as guilty as many other LFC fans of reactionary, not fully thoughtout comments on twitter last night. (though not as bad as some others have gone).
Based on what can be read in the media etc... I think that a ban is fair and should be implemented alongside an awareness course which all players punished for such crimes should attend.
Your right though and context is everything. These were certainly viewed as racial comments by Evra, much of the other black community through the lens of the culture in this country and maybe if you viewed it through the another cultures eyes it wouldn't been so bad, but Suarez has been in England for nearing a year while spending 4years in Holland too. He should have a good enough idea.
But nevertheless he is in a new culture and he just has to learn. I don't think he purposely wanted to discriminate or abuse Evra because of the colour of his skin.
Context is definitely key and 8 matches does seem harsh in the context. I suppose if Terry is found guilty he may face a longer ban.
Diouf was turfed out of Liverpool after the spitting incident so don't know what that's supposed to mean. He is HATED at Liverpool.
Regards Suarez, ask yourself why would he admit to saying anything at all when he didn't have to? He admitted to it, because what he said was not something that had any racist connotations to it. Here we have a player with no history of racism or anything of the sort being accused by a player with a history of crying wolf and vindictiveness. Amazing, isn't it?
It's also surprising that there wasnt a language expert on the panel and part of the decision making process. This is after all a case between a Uruguayan speaking south American Spanish to a Frenchman. We're the three people on the panel language experts, qualified to judge on such matters? Nope.
I'm really looking forward to the written explanation.
I do not condone racism. However, it is quite ironic that England the country with a dark black 300+ year history of imperialism, slavery, racism including accepting terms like “darkee” while outlawing terms like “nigger”. If a black player called Rooney a “Horrible white imperialist bastard”, would he get an 8 match ban? NO ! EPL and the FA are a joke. Can’t support it’s own teams with native English players so must deal with importing players from all over the world and covers its own black English history of racial abuse by appearing to be “better than the rest of the world” handing out 8 match bans.
The Suarez defence - cultural differences, not a racist and no malicious intent - is vapid.
Cultural differences - having spent the last five or so years in Europe, Holland and England, not referring to someone by a racial characteristic should be self-evident. He also plays at a club in a league and a country that campaigns against racism, Let's Kick Racism out of Football and other initiatives.
Not a racist - he's clearly not, Evra agreeing. It's the category error, though, taking the particular to mean the general - you don't need to subscribe to racist views to racially abuse (the furore around Jade Goody an example of this).
No malicious intent - in a fiercely competitive match, players will look for any advantage (Neil Ruddock turning down Catona's collar at corners, say). Perhaps Suarez just wanted to identify the right player in the opposition, 'oi negrito', but doubtful at best.
An eight match ban is substantial and leaves little room but up for other cases. A reduction on appeal might happen, but it's important that bans for racist abuse (as opposed to racism) are larger than those for red cards or totting up.
The support from the club is heartening, but misguided in defending him against being a racist. He caused racial offence, and should serve his ban with good grace (possibly involving some work with anti-racist programmes or local communities if the club show more nous than they have done so far).
Despite all the effort, racism remains a continued blight on English football, never mind issues around homophobia. A defence of cultural differences can't cut it in the modern game.
At the end of the day we are all human beings and there is no need to slander anybody about their colour of skin
Post a Comment