Luis Suarez, racist language & punishment

Luis Suarez (c) Ilya Khokhlov

Following Luiz Suarez's punishment by the Football Association (F.A.) for using “insulting words”, which included references to the colour of Patrice Evra, I am going to begin this post by setting out the following quotes and statements on this issue:

Today is a very difficult and painful day for both me and my family.

(Luiz Suarez on Twitter, 20/12/2011)

Very disappointed with today's verdict.

(Kenneth (Kenny) Dalglish on Twitter, 20/12/2011)

Liverpool Football Club is very surprised and disappointed with the decision of the Football Association Commission to find Luis Suarez guilty of the charges against him...

(Liverpool FC statement, 20/12/2011)

Suarez..told media in Uruguay that he "called him [Evra] something his team-mates at Manchester call him".

(BBC Football post, 20/12/2011)

It is quite an unbelievable statement and a harsh statement. Suarez could be suspended for 20% of the season - it's devastating for Liverpool

(Mark Lawrenson, BBC Football Sport Expert, 20/12/2011)

From what I understand from the likes of Liverpool-kop.com, the word Suarez used to abuse Patrica Evra was “negrita.” BBC Sport's, Tim Vickery, has written a good post on the use of similar words and their context in Uruguayan, and South American, football and culture.

The context of the use of “insulting words” appears to have been key in this judgment. The incident that seems to be relevant, happened when Suaraz and Evra were tussling for a ball towards the bye-line and corner flag.

From the TV cameras, it appears that Suarez was initially upset with Evra for what he thought was a dive. The crowd appear to have agreed and were baying at Evra. The two players can then be seen exchanging words, with both players appearing to be unhappy with each other.

Patrice Evra (c) Gordon Flood

After both players were called to speak to the referee, Suarez put his hand on the top of Evra's head. Evra took offence to this gesture and Suarez said something to him, which again woundd Evra up. Evra was obviously upset, as he was then booked.

Above, Suarez reckons that Evra's team-mates call him something that might be the equivalent of “negrita.” Do they? Does Glen Johnson, the only other black player I know of on Liverpool's first team get called “negrita” in training? If so, do Liverpool FC condone this, and if so, why?

Whilst arguments are made for Suarez on grounds of the cultural differences between English football and Uruguayan football, Suarez has been playing here since January 2011. Prior to this, he played for Ajax Amsterdam from 2007. The cultural differences between Holland and the UK are less wide.

The response to this punishment by Suarez, Liverpool FC and noted pundits, however, is seriously lacking in understanding being a victim of racial abuse. 

Suarez refers to it being a tough day for him, and Liverpool FC and Dalglish are very disappointed. Was it a tough day for Evra too when he was disparaged? Was he disappointed at being slurred by Suarez? Neither Suarez, nor Liverpool FC, have shown any dignity in their reactions to this decision.

Whilst Liverpool FC claim that nobody heard the remarks other than Evra, it does not mean that they did not occur. As noted above, it was very noisy in the area that these words appear to have been uttered. Besides Suarez admitted to Uruguayan media that he had said something. Perhaps he can be brave to tell us what he said to Evra.

As for Lawrenson's statement, it is nothing short of diabolical. Referring to the length of suspension, and the harm that it causes Liverpool FC in their vain quest to reach the dizzying heights of fifth place, it demonstrates what he knows about the harms associated with racial abuse.

More erudite commentary on the F.A.'s punishment comes from the likes of Rueben Hazell and Les Ferdinand, as players who have been on the receiving end of racism in football.

It was only last month that we were up in arms over the racist rant by a woman travelling on a London-Croydon tram. She has since been to court over the incident; Suarez has not. What might be the cultural context of her rant, i.e. the socio-economic reasons as to why she chose to use the awful words that she did, will not be accepted as a defence.

Whilst we regard Premiership footballers, and clubs, as celebrities, and therefore beyond reproach, neither football, nor those within it, are separate to society. Football reaches out to local communities and beyond; it is both in the community and of the community, in which we are all supposedly bound by the same laws, rules and regulations. 


However, like major corporations and other powerful institutions, the FA has special dispensation to punish the social harms caused by their members, whilst ordinary members of the public have to face an inflexible criminal justice system. 


Suarez and Liverpool FC should count themselves lucky.

Sky's the limit

(c) illarterate

A couple of days ago, Liverpool FC Managing Director, Ian Ayre, stated that he only felt it fair that his club should have the right to negotiate its own overseas TV deals. Whilst this is not usual fayre for a criminology blog, notions of social harm come to mind.

Ayre is concerned that his club, along with the other more powerful Premiership clubs, will struggle to compete with their illustrious Spanish counterparts if they do not receive a greater share of overseas revenue. He contends that it is not the Premier League per se that attract overseas viewers, but the more well-known teams. At present, the deal is that all 20 premiership clubs receive an equal share of the Premier League’s foreign rights TV deal.

Football finance expert, Geoff Mesher, and Wigan Athletic Chairman, Dave Whelan, have pointed to the damage it could cause to competition within the Premier League. Whelan suggested that it could lead to its demise, as very few clubs could challenge for the top honours. Spain, they say, is evidence of a league in which there are only two genuine title contenders.

Whilst it is very likely that it would kill competition within England, it is equally likely that it would have wider-ranging effects. In order to compete, these less glamorous clubs would have to find some means of increasing their revenues, such as through increased tickets prices.

Matchday ticket prices have soared by up to 1000% in the two decades since the inception of the Premier League. It has priced many traditional fans out of stadia. Many fans are local to the team that they follow, and to commit to following their team already requires a vast amount of money. If Ayre’s proposal were to go through, and the less glamorous clubs increased ticket prices, local supporters are going to be less likely to pay more money to watch games that are meaningless in terms of winning honours.

Clubs now operate competitively in the commercial and sporting market places. Although modern football clubs are more commercially minded than they used to be, they are not commercial businesses. The majority are not brands. They do not attract passing customers. They belong, and rely on, the support of their local communities. If competition is killed off on the field of play, it is equally likely to kill off financial health. Clubs may well end up going bankrupt. 

And it is in the context of competition that I am reminded of the effects that the closure of coal mines had on their local communities. If these clubs were to go to the wall, it would have a significant impact on local communities. Not just in terms of the passing of the hopes and dreams of fans, but in terms of loss of revenues and jobs for other local businesses that work in and around these clubs, and the community projects that clubs invest in. The social harm caused would be palpable.

Fortunately, this proposal is unlikely to go through the next time that foreign overseas television rights come up for discussion. But that does not mean that it will never happen.