I come in Peace. I understand you probably couldn't care less about what happened on Wednesday but I just wanted to open up (if possible) a debate on political correctness in football (or at least the PL anyway). Whether you think there is/isn't? Where the problems lie? Societal issues. Government to blame etc. No matter what side you are on (it seems to have encapsulated the nation) it's become clear now that kind of behaviour (whether Hazard kicked the ball or not) isn't acceptable partly due to brand image and public outcry. We all hate Man Utd but would a player have been banned for swearing in front of his own away fans 30 or even 20 years ago? The answer is an emphatic No. Just wanted to get your opinions on this, don't bite my head off. Thanks in advance.
he wouldn't of because no one would have heard it.they didn't have mic's all around the pitch like today,or camera's like the one's they can carry around down on pitch side either
Unfortunately DL, football just mirrors society as a whole - and in particular, the power of the media as well as the influence of social media. The (Western) World has largely gone soft and what was acceptable 10,15 or 20 years ago is not now. We also live in an incredibly litigious society, where few in any position of authority will take risks. Put that all together and you have a state of affairs whereby the 'humour' of an incident like Hazard is lost under a morass of political (and criminal!!) correctness. Personally think that you might be picking the wrong incident to prompt your thread, but do agree that the balance has tipped far to far.
Political correctness...how is that related to the Hazrad incident??, and you're right, couldn't give a stuff about it. I also fail to see any connection with United and swearing (rooney at the camera perhaps??) swearing is just swearing isn't it?
I'm still in the process of realizing how ambivalent I am about the rise of PC. I used to think I was whole-heartedly against it. It is I believe ultimately a Soviet term, used ironically at first and now in deadly earnest. I like the traditional US defense of free speech. People saying stupid, hateful things in the long run tend to discredit what they advocate. And yet I haven't reckoned with crowds of people making racist noises, mostly because it doesn't happen in the US. (Not because we don't have racists here, but because crowds of all kinds tend strongly to be very well behaved--don't ask my why, the same people as individuals set records for murder) I admit something has to be done, but by doing that I let the watchmen in--and who watches the watchmen? I think the topic also touches on two other matters--the eternal nature of everything anyone does due to digital media, and the scapegoating that's always been central to our so-called system of justice.
Footballers have to give off an "angelic" image these days, they're some of the most watched people around the world and like it or not, they are "role models" for the young. I think the Hazard thing blew way out of proportion, yes I think he deserved a red as he didn't need to do what he done and he needs to act with maturity on the pitch to set examples, the ref could have dealt with the ball boy if he was time wasting, but the FA saying they are going to take further action and that the fact there was a possibility of the police being involved is pathetic in my opinion. In terms of swearing, like Tots touched upon, there weren't any mics and there were half as many cameras as there were 20/ 30 years ago so it was a completely different scenario back then for players. Plus back then football was a true "mans" sport, like it or not, football is now a business and businesses need to set the best of examples if they're to gain/ keep up a good reputation and succeed.
It's simple; everything on a football pitch is caught by cameras and is scrutinised by the media. If they had had the technology in days gone by, they would have made a similar fuss about it. The great irony in football is that none of this technology is used to aid the officials in the increasingly possible task of officiating the game correctly
Appearing to assault someone or swearing directly into the television camera have got nothing to do with political correctness. They are to do with basic human decency and the application of Football Association or television broadcasting regulations, respectively. The football pitch is a place of work for these professionals and if they want to be held to the standards of 30 years ago they can also take the wages and sponsorship deals from that era too.
Excellently summed up, I agree with every point. As Relayer said, it was probably the wrong platform to base my argument on but 30 or even 20 years ago would Rooney have been banned for swearing? Even recently some quarters have condemned Spurs use of the Y-word (which was used as a defence mechanism for racial slurs by everyone but mainly Arsenal, Chelsea, West Ham)
When you talk about about the behavior of US crowds you hit upon something deeper and very important in such a debate as this. What we are seeing now in the west is repression. It's dressed up in all sorts of ways including PC. The accepted capitalist system adopted by much of the world comes from Chicago economics ie neo liberalism neo conservatism what ever you want to call it. This requires the freeing up of markets which in turn requires unpopular political enactments to bring it to fruition. Part of this process results in the repression of the individual just as the so called communist regimes in the USSR had to. The sixties threw out a lot of the repression that had been going on for ever, but it didn't last long by the eighties it was being reversed and that process has continued. Apparent new freedoms are allowed but behind it lie new and more subtle forms of repression and control. PC and over the top reactions to tiny incidents are all part of it.
Interesting point. I would say that corporate interests across the world take precedence in terms of who is repressed and controlled. The freedoms we have in a western democracy are all bound by being complicit with those same interests.
Repression in Society is surely a constant - it is the Repressor that changes. For centuries, it was directly the power of religion (or indirectly monarchy etc) that dominated the masses. That remains in increasingly smaller areas of the globe - to be replaced by the new powers which you have succinctly identified in your post. Geez - this thread is getting deep!! Who would have thought?? Lol
Yes, 2.5 million people are unemployed in this country, largely a consequence of a massive unpunished fraud conducted by bankers and politicans, but some people insist on freaking out because a multi-millionaire is told he can't play football for a couple of weeks after appearing to assualt a child on worldwide TV. Over the top indeed.
We can spend ages talking about things like the ballboy incident but unless you consider the root to it all then it's a bit of a waste of time.
Or fraud manipulated by posters on a football forum who artificially inflate their own 'power' and then use it to oppress other Forum users........... Mmmmmmm.... You see - it's everywhere!!
Totally agree mate - in fact, just inferred as much in adding a to DL for raising the thread. But on a Friday evening???
The world's a ****. We are all forced to conform with the conventions and repressions of the society we are born into, there is next to no opportunity for individualism or the pursuit of dreams, no real choice. Look at the proportion of young adults who go straight into a career in finance, insurance etc. How many of them can truly be interested in that? Capitalism may have won the Cold War, but it has proved itself to be just as fragile and flawed as communism was. Political Correctness is the least of our worries.
Hazard isn't repressed; he earns a fortune for not doing very much and by and large, does what he wants when he wants to. It's nothing to do with political correctness to expect that footballers shouldn't kick ball boys. If it was, Hazard would have questioned by the police and charged- like Terry was over the racial abuse of Anton Ferdinand- to show that the might of the state would step in if you dared to behave in a way which was deemed un-PC (even if far less serious than behaviour which is never criminalised). The truth is Hazard behaved like a prat in front of the TV cameras and it is the F.A, not the state, he is answerable to. They will do what they always do when players misbehave over and beyond a straightforward breach of their rules- bring a disrepute charge and fine and ban him for longer than usual.
