http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11688/7777339/ So now clubs will be able to sack players for racist abuse; were they not able to before now? If being racist isn't reason enough to have your contract terminated, what is?
They are just trying to make it legally transparent. Companies can sack people who make racist comments but rarely want to get involved in appeals. Not the same situation, but in the past I know of someone sacked for theft who was then given a small pay off just to go away. The evidence would have convinced any normal person, but not good enough for the hoops that courts make you go through. If a player signs up to this it reminds them of acceptable behaviour and strengthens the hand of the club when they sack them.
I wonder, would Terry or Suarez have been sacked had the option been available to their clubs? I doubt it.
Does racism include ginger-jokes? This has always been a foggy area for me. Not sure if i'm a 'racist' or not.
I don't think it should be left to the decision of the clubs. The FA is every player's ultimate employer, and should take it into their own hands to sack any player under their jurisdiction who is found guilty of racist abuse. Sometimes you need a bit of government intervention.
The problem with racism is that its really hard to pin down. Is John Terry a racist? Well, he is surrounded by black players at his club and if I were them and I thought he was genuinely racist I think I would be reluctant to play alongside him. I suspect he was just trying to wind up someone on the opposite team and rather overstepped the mark. If sledging the opposition is a crime then the entire Australian cricket team would have been locked up years ago. The other thing which is rather obvious is that clubs are very reluctant to sack anyone on the playing staff because they are basically throwing money away. The likes of Barton would have been sacked ages ago if he had no value on the transfer market. Anyway, there is nothing new here. Any company can sack someone if they have broken the law.
Ah the old "some of my friends are black" defence. You know, it's possible to be a racist and have black friends, or a misogynist and have female friends. It's not exactly rational. And sledging is not a crime, but if you happen to break the law while doing it, then you have broken the law. Barton isn't being kept because of his transfer value, he's being kept because he's on a long-term and lucrative contract which will cost QPR millions to terminate.
This is another media/FA high-horse subject. Are they going to allow players to be sacked if they say 'you're a woman' to another player are they going to be fired for sexism or if they mention the word 'gay' will they be fired for homophobia? The problem is in too many of these cases we just have one persons word against another. Also people say stupid things to one another all the time, but we do not have a microphone/camera watching our every step (except in shopping centres of course!). Now I abhor racism, however I cannot help but think this is another witch hunt.
They probably did but this makes it crystal clear. As I said though, it's a token gesture because there aren't many players clubs will willingly let go. Calling a man a woman is not sexist, nor is mentioning the word 'gay' homophobic, it's all about context as I'm sure you realise.
Ok...when Adrian Mutu failed a drugs test for cocaine, he was in breach of his contract. Therefore Chelsea were able to chase him for the financial loss they suffered by sacking him, including the £13m they paid to Parma to buy him. Many legal arguments later, FIFA decided that Mutu had to pay Chelsea €17m. Whether they actually get that money is another matter. The point being, that including racist abuse in a contract in the same way that drugs (obviously) are, will give it the same status for clubs to be able to sack players without the financial penalty.
Well explained, except for one thing, every contract will be breached by 'bringing the club into disrepute', which any criminal offence would constitute. Racial crimes included. So this measure already exists, this is just making it explicit. It won't change anything.
I don't think this is strictly true. There are a number of valid reasons for sacking someone and doing it legally so it doesn't matter what contract they are on. If you breach club rules then that can be a legitimate reason. By definition breaking the law must be deemed breaking club rules. It doesn't mean the club must sack them but any decent sized organisation should have in place a proper disciplinary procedure and provided it is followed there would be no requirement to honour a contract.
