Gabriele Marcotti
The release of the Independent Commission's judgment on the Patrice Evra-Luis Suarez case will, hopefully, shed more light on this thorny issue. Each of us will then be able to draw our own conclusions. But, already, there are some early thoughts that come to mind:
1. Until we accept that being a racist and engaging in racist abuse are two different things, we won't get very far. And, in that sense, it was disturbing that Liverpool's statement went out of its way to underscore the fact that Luis Suarez is not a racist, pointing out that he has a black grandparent, his involvement with a race-related charity and his captaincy of a multi-cultural team like Ajax.
If the hearing put Liverpool in a position where they felt they needed point this out, then something's wrong. It's not the job of the footballing authorities to take action against people who have racism in their hearts and minds. Why? Because we still have freedom of thought. And, more importantly, nobody is a mind-reader. The hearing should have focused only on Suarez's actions because those are the only things that can be monitored and the only things that affect others. Hopefully that's what happened, which would have made Suarez's ethnic descent entirely irrelevant.
2. It is fair to clearly make rules about what you can and cannot say on a football pitch and, if someone violates those rules, then he should be punished. The central question is how clear those rules are. Obviously, from here on out, it's imperative that the authorities and the club make it crystal clear to the players. There is plenty of abuse that can be heaped on on opponent, but some of it is out of bounds. Cross the line and you will be punished. Evidently Suarez did not have a clear idea of what was and was not allowed.
3. One thing remains unclear to me. It has been widely reported that Suarez admitted making a reference to Evra's skin colour but he did not do so in a derogatory manner (at least not in his mind, based on the cultural mores in his native Uruguay). If this was indeed the basis of his defence, then I think Liverpool played their hand poorly.
At the risk of sounding like Sepp Blatter, perhaps a face-to-face sit-down with Evra followed by an apology if he took offence would probably have helped his case. Evra, of course, would have been free to turn it down and pursue the case further, but at least Suarez would have shown an intent to atone. Instead, Liverpool's statement questions the reliability of Evra as a witness and points out that it's one person's word against another.
Strategically, you're best served choosing one path or another. Either Evra is not a credible accuser and it's man's word against another or Suarez said something but it was entirely innocent and certainly not meant as racist abuse. Trying to play it both ways undermines your case, regardless of who is right and who is wrong.
4. It has also been widely reported that Evra told the referee, Andre Marriner, that he was only being booked because he's black. I hope we find out whether this is true and where this comes from. If Marriner heard it, then he ought to be disciplined. You can't have a referee meekly accepting accusations that he is racially prejudiced without some kind of inquiry. As an accusation, it's exceptionally serious. If it's entirely made up then I hope Evra has a good libel lawyer because it's defamatory towards him.
5. I'm also eager to know how they arrived at an eight-match ban. And I hope we take this opportunity to reflect on what the purpose of punishment is. If it's to rehabilitate, then you don't need an eight-match ban. You need to simply sit Suarez down and explain a thing or two to him. If it's to deter others from following in Suarez's footsteps, fair enough. It's certainly a long enough ban that it serves as a massive deterrent. But it's worth remembering that a seven-game ban or nine-game ban would have served the exact same purpose. It's not as if a footballer sits and thinks: "If I racially abuse my opponent, I'll get eight games so I better not, but if I only got three games it would be worth the satisfaction of calling him a black so-and-so." Let's not kid ourselves. It's hard to conclude that they did anything but pluck the number eight out of thin air.
6. The only precedent I can remember in a high profile match came back in October 2000, when Sinisa Mihajlovic racially abused Patrick Vieira in a Champions League match. Mihajlovic was banned for two games. But there are substantial differences. Mihajlovic admitted it immediately after the game. He said that he had been provoked by Vieira, who had called him a "gypsy s***", a version of events which Vieira never disputed. And Mihajlovic made a very public apology, taking the "heat of battle/reciprocal insults" defence.
In other words, there was a very clear defensive strategy that played out very quickly. Which is why he only got a two-game ban. There was no dispute about what was said and there was near-immediate atonement. For those reasons, you can't really compare it to this case.
(There was a curious epilogue to this whole affair. In 2006, Mihajlovic retired from football and became Roberto Mancini's assistant at Inter. That same summer, Inter signed Vieira and Mihajlovic, effectively, became his boss. Now, of course, Vieira is one of Mancini's assistants at Manchester City. Whatever their differences, it's pretty obvious that Vieira and Mihajlovic buried the hatchet rather quickly.)
7. All that said, the Commission had an extremely difficult job to do. And it approached the task knowing that, whatever it came up with, it would come in for criticism.
"Phoenix till they lose"
