Ok, I’m a bit confused – not generally you understand but about something specific – if comments with a perceived racist connotation are a reportable offence punishable by, if not the law then certainly the FA, how is it this only seems to apply to players?
You know what I’m talking about right? John Terry was subjected to no less than a witch hunt by the public, the press and anyone else who cared to jump aboard the bandwagon carrying the gallows in preparation for his hanging. He lost his captaincy for England and eventually had no choice but to retire from international duty altogether. He stood trial and despite a not guilty verdict, was duly punished by the FA for breaching their rules of conduct.
Next up we have referee Mark Clattenburg, alleged to have called Juan Mata a “Spanish t*at” and John Obi Mikel a “monkey”, and it looks as if with no more than a rest for a couple of games, he’ll walk away from the allegation whilst Chelsea are condemned for daring to report him in the first place.
Of course, Chelsea chose not to report the alleged offence to the police – probably because they expected the FA to follow the precedent they’d already set with Suarez and JT – yet it seems this course of action, rather than being regarded as a rational decision on the club’s part to get the whole sorry mess over and done with as quickly as possible, is actually being used to support some bizarre fabrication theory. Despite a complaint made by the Society of Black Lawyers, with no complaint forthcoming from Chelsea, The Metropolitan Police feel they have nothing to investigate therefore, as far as everyone outside the club is concerned, it obviously can’t have happened in the first place.
Why for God sake? Why would anyone imagine for a minute that John Obi Mikel would storm into Clattenburg’s dressing room after the game and confront him if nothing had happened? Particularly given the year the club had just faced, would they really come out in support of Mikel’s claim if they believed it to have no foundation? Of course they wouldn’t but as Chairman Bruce Buck says “We were guided by obligations that are imposed by the Football Association and also as an employer. FA rule E14 basically says a participant shall immediately report to the association any incident or matter which may be considered to be a misconduct. Misconduct is a defined term under the FA regulations and includes such racial behaviour. We also had to consider the Equality Act 2010, which imposes an obligation on an employer to take certain actions if an employee is subject to discrimination by third parties. Suppose we had tried to sweep this under the rug and said to the various players, “Look, it’s not a big deal and the press are going to be all over us, maybe you want to reconsider”. If that had leaked out, we would’ve really been crucified.
I spoke to the players involved, either because they were allegedly the recipient of that abuse or had heard it, three separate times. I asked them if they could be mistaken. I asked them if they might have heard ‘Mikel’ instead of ‘monkey’. I thought I had covered that base.”
Of course we’ve heard it’s all about Clattenburg’s awful performance and the fact his decisions quite clearly determined the eventual result but really, given anyone watching the game would know we were the better side on the day and only lost as a result of inept officiating, surely any complaint the club wanted to make would have been related to that? Indeed, Buck is quite clear as far as the direction of the game was concerned, saying “The reaction has been very unfair. We weren’t interested in any confrontation with the referee or anybody else, had no thoughts of revenge on the referee. He made two obvious mistakes (sending Torres off and allowing Hernandez’s goal) which changed the tide. I felt we had the moral high ground, so I didn’t really feel that bad about the defeat or have that feeling in my stomach.”
Of course, we all know what the disparity around this particular allegation is really all about don’t we? John Terry. The Chelsea captain was accused of making racist comments – which by the way automatically meant he was guilty – and irrespective of a not guilty verdict in court and the FA insisting they did not believe him to be racist, Chelsea are now regarded as no better than the Ku Klux Klan.
As Buck explains “The press seem to juxtapose ‘our support’ of John Terry and what’s going on here, and looking at us as being a bit hypocritical. We have to divorce the John Terry situation from this. From our perspective, the latest situation was pretty straightforward. We have an obligation to report what may be misconduct. We did that, in good faith and not maliciously.”
So, if it was United making an allegation that day, would it be used against them in the same way?
Blue is the colour
