I'm just curious. When I heard the allegation that the ref, first "racially abused" a couple Chelsea players, I just couldn't believe it. Now Chelsea's allegation has changed to "Mark Clattenburg used inappropriate language" toward some players. To me, the whole thing stinks of a Chelsea lie. First, Chelsea's players already appear to have a promiscuous relationship with the truth, starting with John Terry and working its way down to the "evolution" of Asley Cole's testimony before the Terry/Ferdinand commission. Second, while I'm aware that Clattenburg is human and, thus, capable of saying and doing stupid things, I (like Fergie) find it hard to believe a calm and collected ref is going to a) racial abuse anyone in public, or b) use "inappropriate language". Frankly, I'm not sure what would be construed as "inappropriate language" on the part of a ref given the fact that players are yelling "f--- off" at him the entire game. Am I alone in not believing this claim?
I don't know what to think. I'm hoping that it will turn out to be a genuine misunderstanding, with Mikel mishearing something innocuous from Clattenburg. My immiediate reaction was to doubt that any ref would be so stupid. I read this week that the Chelsea bigwigs felt they had to respond publicly to their players' complaints out of fear of being painted as soft on racism if they didn't. Understandably, it's a criticism they are particularly sensitive to after the Terry affair. It's a shame, as the whole thing would have been much better played out privately if it turns out that Clattenburg didn't do anything wrong.
Much as I hate Chelsea, given their history they wouldn't be so stupid as to make something like this up, especially with the spotlight firmly on racism these days. By the same token I find it hard to believe that Clattenburg would say something like that, so it points to a genuine misunderstanding.
I think Chelsea were too quick to complain publically. I think it is a misunderstanding. I really can't see Clattenburg using such language when can be heard by the other match officials. The players were furious after the game and again acted badly by barging in to the referees room and giving abuse themselves to Clattenburg. It needs cool considered management after events like this and they should have waiting to reflect on the nights events and talked about it the next day. This was poor management in my view and I think Chelsea look stupid now.
Agree Fulham COYW and it was daft on Chelsea's part going public with their claims within a couple of hours of the match ending. I don't believe they should have gone public at all but if it's true that Mikel hadn't actually heard Clattenburg and it was Ramires who told him later, then it seems doubly bad judgement. The key evidence will be from his assistant refs and the fourth official who were mic’d up to the him on Sunday, although their conversations were not recorded.
Like Cottager58 my understanding is that it was Ramires who heard the "racial abuse" not Mikel. But more than that apparently Ramires' English is poor and he had to ask Luiz to translate what he thought he'd heard. He then passed this translation on to Mikel. Therefore the situation is already a cross between Chinese Whispers and Lost in Translation. More than that, does anyone(other than John Terry and Suarez) actually go around racially abusing people in real life? I really don't think they do, especially a premiership referee who must have been trained in self control in difficult circumstances. I have seen a suggestion that what the ref actually said was "I don't give a monkeys" which sounds far more likely than the use of the word he has been accused of. I hope that Chelsea's claims are found to be defamatory and they are punished severely for making them.
It is difficult to believe that Mark Clattenburg would racially abuse a player. And I wonder if Chelsea went public too quickly - not that I would condone burying anything, but the facts might not be so clearcut, including the circumstances of who heard what and how they then followed-up with the Referee post-match. Maybe if the FA, UEFA and FIFA actually backed up their Respect campaign with a broader consistent action, then the player aggression which undermines the entire relationship between players and official would be reduced. I'm thinking of the way they bottled out on the aborted 10 yard rule for arguing, while fining higher amounts for breaching sponsorship than for both serious matters.
The thing that amazes me is that these are the same players who never heard a word when John Terry actually did say something but who in the intervening weeks have miraculously developed astonishing hearing.
It won't happen unless the FA magically gains a backbone, but most of these problems would be instantly sorted by allowing the public to hear the referee microphones. It works absolutely fine in rugby without any problems. Once sponsors hear the language of players, I bet that language would magically clear up pretty quickly. However, that is exactly why this will not happen any time soon - football is so dependent on that sponsorship that they wouldn't want to lose a single sponsor. Ignoring the fact that the sponsors won't go anywhere, the fans are too large a cash cow.
Wow, this is a real eye-opener. Supposedly Clattenburg is known for being especially 'informal', so him saying "I don't give a monkeys" would be well within character.
I too think Chelsea were very quick to go Public. I think it was feed to the media on purpose. I suspect there were outside influences which stirred it up, hence we now have lawyers getting involved. The latest being Tottenham fans famous chant, which certain Jewish people find offensive, but doesn't really relate to the religion more a nick name that they started themselves when Arsenal fans took the mickey when Arsenal had JVC as sponsors. It became a rallying call for Tottenham fans, most of who aren't Jewish.
Your last sentence is the key to why a lot of people find it offensive, Super Brian. If a mostly white-supported team based in an area with a significant black population - say, Brixton - started calling themselves by the N word, most people would, I think, find it offensive. David Baddiel is very eloquent on the subject of why use of the Y word (whether by Spurs fans or by others in reference to them) is offensive to Jews like himself. Here's an article and video linked to a campaign he started last year. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8450760/Anti-Semitic-abuse-rife-among-football-fans.html
I think the Spurs issue isn't quite as serious. The chants are meant for Spurs fans (of any colour or creed) and the word is used as such (although the hissing and general holocaust references are definitely a step too far). I actually find it mildly offensive that there will be a union exclusively for black players. If there was one exclusively for white players the world would implode with outrage.
I agree that the proposed all-black union isn't necessarily a good idea, but there's a difference between an exclusive union for a group who have historically been discriminated against, and a union for a group who have historically been the majority and undiscriminated against. The first would be concerned with fighting injustice, discrimination, etc; the latter concerned with preserving privilege. The problem is that the PFA hasn't necessarily spoken out on the recent cases between its members - presumably because they felt they had a duty towards both parties. That has led to some black players and activists from outside the game to feel that it doesn't represent black players sufficiently in these cases. What we need is for the PFA (which I think is a pretty good organisation, generally speaking) to be seen to take a lead against racism so that black players feel that the PFA is fighting their corner on race issues. That way everyone would be happy with a pan-racial union. I actually don't think the PFA has done a lot wrong, and the more significant problem is with the responses from the authorities and the clubs concerned. I don't know if the PFA has a code of conduct for its members. It probably does, but I can see that it's hard for them to condemn one of their members who is denying a charge of racial abuse. They're in a tough situation until someone is found guilty or admits guilt.
Yes, but it's these perceived differences that cause the problem, certainly the common view that the white man treads on the black man. The idea should be that black players are equal to white/asian/etc and that they can live and work among us without being treated differently. Making a seperate union for black players and black players alone highlights them and segregates them from the other footballers. It just seems daft and rushed.
I agree! I was just making the point that in matters of discrimination, it's not as simple as asking what we'd think if things were the other way around. There is a different dynamic between the haves and the have nots that can't be ignored.
I don't think creating a black union's a good idea, but I can easily see why they're doing it. Basically, there are no serious consequences for fans, countries or players who perform racial taunts. John Terry got a four-games suspension, but he didn't lose four weeks wages (fine was 220k, about 10 days of his pay) and the club didn't lose any points. Serbia's players and fans will get a slap on the wrist, if anything, by feckless UEFA. Lazio's fans racially abuse Tottenham players in London, but the team was only fined 40k Euro. I'd say that black players recognize the obvious: the FA and Uefa don't take this business very seriously, as evidenced by these gutless penalties, so I'm guessing that's why the black players are thinking of forming a union. If this union is formed, it will be interesting to see how, and when, they exercise their power. If a team and its fans is found guilty of racial abusing other players or fans, what will they do? Will the black players on the offending team go on strike for a week? If some kind of taunting occurs during a match, will all the black players from both side walk off the pitch together to let the rest of the players fight it out short handed? What will they do if Asley Cole or some other big-name black (or mixed race) player doesn't join? Will he be a "scab" and get his a-- kicked by the unionized players? It will be interesting to see.
Yeah, I see what you're saying. Although the lines between the 'haves' and 'have-nots' are undoubtably much, MUCH more blurred than they were.
The point for me is Chelsea stance as standing up for their emplyee, their duty of care for their player. Their employees rights and to be seen as doing the right thing as an employer. It all smacks of hypocrosy when you look at the Terry incident. Here they didn't take the employers view at all (real world emplyers that is!). Numpties! They should have investigated properly before going public.
I agree on Spurs. This letter in today's Telegraph: "I am a religious Jew and proudly wear my skull cap to White Hart Lane, and have never been insulted or worse (Sport, November 7). Far from being offended by the chanting, I find it quite endearing. In any event, many Jews refer to themselves as “Yids”, as in a “guten Yid” – a good Jew. The younger generation sometimes refer to their skull caps as “Yid lids”. If “Yid” is not considered derogatory by Jews, why should its use be forbidden to non-Jews?" Chelsea's behaviour is entirely different IMO.
