This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2013/may/17/fa-five-game-minimum-racism-ban

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
FA's five-game minimum racism ban makes unnecessary mess of messaging FA's five-game minimum racism ban makes unnecessary mess of messaging
(34 minutes later)
Not for the first time the Football Association finds itself caught in a bind. And, as usual, it's partly of its own making and partly down to an inability to communicate its message effectively. Well meaning, but ultimately misguided, the denouement to a racism saga that demanded decisive action has instead ended in yet more discord. Not for the first time the Football Association finds itself caught in a bind. And, as usual, it's partly of its own making and partly down to an inability to communicate its message effectively. Well-meaning, but ultimately misguided, the denouement to a racism saga that demanded decisive action has instead ended in yet more discord.
The background is the horrifically corrosive 18 months that almost tore the game apart, indirectly led to the departure of one England manager and one England captain and prompted endless soul-searching over the punishments laid down to John Terry and Luis Suárez over incidents of on-pitch racism.The background is the horrifically corrosive 18 months that almost tore the game apart, indirectly led to the departure of one England manager and one England captain and prompted endless soul-searching over the punishments laid down to John Terry and Luis Suárez over incidents of on-pitch racism.
It ended with the FA chairman, David Bernstein, who to his credit has realised that this will be seen as one of the signature issues of a tenure that will come to a premature end in July, announcing at Wembley that its new minimum sanction for racist abuse or other kinds of discrimination is five matches.It ended with the FA chairman, David Bernstein, who to his credit has realised that this will be seen as one of the signature issues of a tenure that will come to a premature end in July, announcing at Wembley that its new minimum sanction for racist abuse or other kinds of discrimination is five matches.
That is, one more game than the four matches ban given to Terry for calling QPR's Anton Ferdinand a "fucking black cunt" on a Premier League pitch and widely criticised as too lenient. And five fewer games than the minimum 10-match ban proposed, albeit in seemingly off the cuff fashion, by Uefa's general secretary, Gianni Infantino, to apply in its own competitions. That is one more game than the four-match ban given to Terry for calling Queens Park Rangers' Anton Ferdinand a "fucking black cunt" on a Premier League pitch and widely criticised as too lenient. And five fewer games than the minimum 10-match ban proposed, albeit in seemingly off-the-cuff fashion, by Uefa's general secretary, Gianni Infantino, to apply in its own competitions.
The FA claimed on Thursday that its plan was well thought through, extensively consulted upon and universally signed up to by all the games "stakeholders" – from the Professional Footballers' Association to the Premier League. Prominent players and campaigners in this debate seemed less sure.The FA claimed on Thursday that its plan was well thought through, extensively consulted upon and universally signed up to by all the games "stakeholders" – from the Professional Footballers' Association to the Premier League. Prominent players and campaigners in this debate seemed less sure.
The problem was partly presentational. In the discussions that followed Bernstein was loth to be drawn into debating specific incidents, but intimated that an offence of the scale of Terry's would almost certainly warrant a ban of more than five games. The problem was partly presentational. In the discussions that followed, Bernstein was loth to be drawn into debating specific incidents but intimated that an offence of the scale of Terry's would almost certainly warrant a ban of more than five games.
The idea of the five game minimum was to give an effective "floor" for the least serious kind of offence with no aggravating factors, the FA argued – such as the youth-team player who said the wrong thing, in the heat of the moment, and immediately apologised to the referee and to his opponent. The idea of the five-game minimum was to give an effective "floor" for the least serious kind of offence with no aggravating factors, the FA argued – such as the youth-team player who said the wrong thing, in the heat of the moment, and immediately apologised to the referee and to his opponent.
Putting aside for one minute the question of how to grade the "seriousness" of offensive language, it hardly sends the most uncompromising message.Putting aside for one minute the question of how to grade the "seriousness" of offensive language, it hardly sends the most uncompromising message.
Why not, instead, say that racist abuse or other forms of discrimination would carry a mandatory 10-game ban other than in the case of exceptional mitigating factors? Why not make more of the fact that repeat offenders could be punished with a lifetime ban? Why not say that an offence such as Terry's would almost certainly lead to a 10-match ban? That message would tally with the rhetoric. Instead, the FA finds itself pitched straight back into immediate conflict with those players and campaigners whose simmering resentment over its handling of the issue bubbled over into those "T-shirt protests" six months ago and has still to be adequately quelled.Why not, instead, say that racist abuse or other forms of discrimination would carry a mandatory 10-game ban other than in the case of exceptional mitigating factors? Why not make more of the fact that repeat offenders could be punished with a lifetime ban? Why not say that an offence such as Terry's would almost certainly lead to a 10-match ban? That message would tally with the rhetoric. Instead, the FA finds itself pitched straight back into immediate conflict with those players and campaigners whose simmering resentment over its handling of the issue bubbled over into those "T-shirt protests" six months ago and has still to be adequately quelled.
Piara Powar, the director of Football Against Racism in Europe who sits on Fifa's new anti-racism taskforce as the world governing body claims to be getting tough on the issue after years of inaction, described the FA's move as a missed opportunity.Piara Powar, the director of Football Against Racism in Europe who sits on Fifa's new anti-racism taskforce as the world governing body claims to be getting tough on the issue after years of inaction, described the FA's move as a missed opportunity.
Following the Downing Street summit, a 92-point plan and the endless hot air expended on the subject in the past 18 months, the overwhelming feeling is that the FA has failed to grasp the opportunity to draw a definitive line in the sand.Following the Downing Street summit, a 92-point plan and the endless hot air expended on the subject in the past 18 months, the overwhelming feeling is that the FA has failed to grasp the opportunity to draw a definitive line in the sand.
Some of the FA's frustrations are understandable. It has taken a patient, thorough approach and committed £4m over the next four years to combatting discrimination. In contrast, Uefa and Fifa – also under fire for their historic approach to the issue – have taken a more headline grabbing stance. Some of the FA's frustrations are understandable. It has taken a patient, thorough approach and committed £4m over the next four years to combating discrimination. In contrast, Uefa and Fifa – also under fire for their historic approach to the issue – have taken a more headline-grabbing stance.
After years of criticism that it was more interested in talking the talk with "weeks of action" and glossy TV ads than walking the walk with meaningful sanctions that hit clubs and players where it hurts, Uefa's 10-game ban will be voted on at its congress in London next week. It will only apply to its own competitions (ie the European Championship, the Champions League and the Europa League) but it can recommend to all 53 member associations that it is implemented. Uefa, after years of criticism that it was more interested in talking the talk with "weeks of action" and glossy TV ads than walking the walk with meaningful sanctions that hit clubs and players where it hurts, will vote on a 10-game ban at its congress in London next week. It will only apply to its own competitions (ie the European Championship, the Champions League and the Europa League) but it can recommend to all 53 member associations that it is implemented.
At Fifa's three-ring circus, meanwhile, Sepp Blatter has gone from believing racism can be solved with a handshake and a photo opportunity to placing himself as president front and centre of a blizzard of task forces and Pravda-style interviews on the governing body's own website. At Fifa's three-ring circus, meanwhile, Sepp Blatter has gone from believing racism can be solved with a handshake and a photo opportunity to placing himself as president front and centre of a blizzard of task forces and Pravda-style interviews on the governing body's website.
His hastily convened anti-racism taskforce, on which Bernstein also sits, will draw up measures to put forward Fifa's own congress in Mauritius (where else?) at the end of the month. His hastily convened anti-racism taskforce, on which Bernstein also sits, will draw up measures to put forward at Fifa's congress in Mauritius (where else?) at the end of the month.
That such a serious issue should become part of the ongoing PR shadow boxing between Uefa's Michel Platini and Blatter ahead of the next Fifa presidential election is pretty shameful in itself. But if the outcome is meaningful sanctions that have a material effect on the behaviour of players and fans, and highlight just how seriously the problem should be taken, then the ends will justify the sometimes dubious means.That such a serious issue should become part of the ongoing PR shadow boxing between Uefa's Michel Platini and Blatter ahead of the next Fifa presidential election is pretty shameful in itself. But if the outcome is meaningful sanctions that have a material effect on the behaviour of players and fans, and highlight just how seriously the problem should be taken, then the ends will justify the sometimes dubious means.
The FA's new tariff provides for the possibility that clubs can also be sanctioned if more than one of their players is banned in a particular season, potentially up to and including points deductions.The FA's new tariff provides for the possibility that clubs can also be sanctioned if more than one of their players is banned in a particular season, potentially up to and including points deductions.
Bernstein also, rightly, pleaded for the new tariffs to be seen in the context of other elements of the typically overblown 92-point plan unveiled earlier this year – emphasising the educational element and other initiatives such as a drive to encourage more qualified black coaches. Bernstein also, rightly, pleaded for the new tariffs to be seen in the context of other elements of the typically overblown 92-point plan unveiled this year – emphasising the educational element and other initiatives such as a drive to encourage more qualified black coaches.
But none of that is likely to satisfy those who see the five-game minimum ban as a cop out an opportunity missed. Jason Roberts, the Reading striker who has been among the most eloquent and outspoken on this issue, let rip via Twitter. "While Uefa propose a 10 match ban for racism, the FA decides on 5! Who do they consult on these decision? Certainly not the players," he said. But none of that is likely to satisfy those who see the five-game minimum ban as a cop-out and an opportunity missed. Jason Roberts, the Reading striker who has been among the most eloquent and outspoken on this issue, let rip via Twitter. "While Uefa propose a 10 match ban for racism, the FA decides on 5! Who do they consult on these decision? Certainly not the players," he wrote.
"The last 18 months regarding equality at the FA has consisted of bad decisions, lack of will, lack of consultation and lack of leadership! Poor decisions on high profile cases, a weak "92" point plan and now 5 games, confirms, it is left to the players concerned to effect change.""The last 18 months regarding equality at the FA has consisted of bad decisions, lack of will, lack of consultation and lack of leadership! Poor decisions on high profile cases, a weak "92" point plan and now 5 games, confirms, it is left to the players concerned to effect change."
His point is well made. As we trooped up Olympic Way to hear from Bernstein in one of Wembley's well appointed executive boxes, the FA councillors who had just voted on the new measures at their AGM filed past the other way in their blazers. Uniformly white, male and of pensionable age, it was a reminder that until the physician heals itself and takes meaningful steps towards becoming a more diverse and modern organisation, it will be hard for the FA to take the moral high ground on this issue or make its case with any authority. His point is well made. As we trooped up Olympic Way to hear from Bernstein in one of Wembley's well-appointed executive boxes, the FA councillors who had just voted on the new measures at their AGM filed past the other way in their blazers. Uniformly white, male and of pensionable age, it was a reminder that until the physician heals itself and takes meaningful steps towards becoming a more diverse and modern organisation, it will be hard for the FA to take the moral high ground on this issue or make its case with any authority.