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.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/14/editorial-richard-scudamore-show-him-the-red-card
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Richard Scudamore: show him the red card | Richard Scudamore: show him the red card |
| (about 17 hours later) | |
| Do we have the right to be repellent? The question arises because of misogynistic comments made in emails sent by the Premier League chief executive, Richard Scudamore. Perhaps people have the right to think appalling thoughts – even to exchange unpalatable private remarks with a friend. But where do we stand when the repellent private thoughts of a public figure are exposed? | |
| The chief executive, who has apologised for his "error of judgment", invokes the confidentiality of his correspondence. But he claims an unrealistic protection when his misdemeanours fill newsprint pages and reverberate around the web: as a matter of fact, his attitudes are no longer private. We know about his attitudes because a temporary employee (to whom he owed a duty of care) was appalled, not just by his emails, but by the gulf between them and a public face committed to women in football. His claim to privacy has, then, collided with the accusation of hypocrisy. His argument is also damaged by the fact that he used the Premier League's email; and an office arrangement that did not stop his writings being read and leaked by others. There can be no absolute right to privacy for those who do not safeguard their own communications. | The chief executive, who has apologised for his "error of judgment", invokes the confidentiality of his correspondence. But he claims an unrealistic protection when his misdemeanours fill newsprint pages and reverberate around the web: as a matter of fact, his attitudes are no longer private. We know about his attitudes because a temporary employee (to whom he owed a duty of care) was appalled, not just by his emails, but by the gulf between them and a public face committed to women in football. His claim to privacy has, then, collided with the accusation of hypocrisy. His argument is also damaged by the fact that he used the Premier League's email; and an office arrangement that did not stop his writings being read and leaked by others. There can be no absolute right to privacy for those who do not safeguard their own communications. |
| Mr Scudamore himself, as representative of the country's biggest and richest clubs, has a responsibility to challenge the still-ingrained macho attitudes that blight boardrooms, dressing rooms and terraces. He has been found wanting there too. Though condemnation has been wide – with sports minister Helen Grant leading the criticism – multiple factors have worked in his favour. The Football Association, accepting the privacy argument, has declined to press disciplinary charges and the Premier League clubs themselves, enamoured of a man who secured them a TV deal worth £5.5bn over three years, aren't minded to move against him. As chief executive of the Premier League, he enjoys enviably light-touch supervision. Just two people sit on its board, one of whom is Mr Scudamore himself. He was lucky that the emails were sexist and not racist. For had he expressed an equivalent degree of racism, the public clamour would have been unsurvivable. Fortunate too that he is the boss and not an underling. A subordinate thus exposed would now be unemployed. | Mr Scudamore himself, as representative of the country's biggest and richest clubs, has a responsibility to challenge the still-ingrained macho attitudes that blight boardrooms, dressing rooms and terraces. He has been found wanting there too. Though condemnation has been wide – with sports minister Helen Grant leading the criticism – multiple factors have worked in his favour. The Football Association, accepting the privacy argument, has declined to press disciplinary charges and the Premier League clubs themselves, enamoured of a man who secured them a TV deal worth £5.5bn over three years, aren't minded to move against him. As chief executive of the Premier League, he enjoys enviably light-touch supervision. Just two people sit on its board, one of whom is Mr Scudamore himself. He was lucky that the emails were sexist and not racist. For had he expressed an equivalent degree of racism, the public clamour would have been unsurvivable. Fortunate too that he is the boss and not an underling. A subordinate thus exposed would now be unemployed. |
| A tawdry affair, yet telling, especially compared with the US, where Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers basketball team, was exposed for private, derogatory comments about black people and banned from his sport for life. Their approach suggests seriousness; ours reeks of neglect and complacency. The Premier League's audit and remuneration committee meets next week, with the theoretical ability to bring Mr Scudamore to account. He may jump, he may be pushed, but either way he should go. | A tawdry affair, yet telling, especially compared with the US, where Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers basketball team, was exposed for private, derogatory comments about black people and banned from his sport for life. Their approach suggests seriousness; ours reeks of neglect and complacency. The Premier League's audit and remuneration committee meets next week, with the theoretical ability to bring Mr Scudamore to account. He may jump, he may be pushed, but either way he should go. |
| • This article was amended on 15 May 2014, it wrongly described Richard Scudamore as the FA chief executive. |
Previous version
1
Next version