If I were the head of the Serbian Football Federation, I’d be worried. The racist chanting by Serbian fans during their U21 team’s final group match against England has really landed them in it. UEFA don’t mess about when it comes to serious matters like this; they operate a policy of ‘zero tolerance’.
Or at least that’s what UEFA's clownish spokesman, William Gaillard, would like us to believe.
Among the besuited, champagne-quaffing footballcrats at UEFA, ‘zero tolerance’ is something of a hazy expression. For it can imply numerous eventualities, to which if you or I were pushed to give a numeric tolerance-value, it would certainly not be zero. For example, when Ashley Cole was subjected to monkey chants at the Santiago Bernabeu, when England played Spain three years ago, the Spanish FA were fined £30,000. Considering gate receipts for that game would have been upwards of £1.5 million, the fine imposed was not zero-tolerant. I would probably place it somewhere in the region of 6-tolerance, which is fairly tolerant, given that my scale only goes up to 10 and 10 would have involved letting the Spanish off scot-free.
So, following the embarrassing events of Sunday night, what punishment can we expect to see meted out to the Serbian FA?
Those of us who don’t ride to work on the UEFA gravy train would expect to see Serbia expelled from the competition. No ifs, no buts, no questions. That way, in any future tournaments, fans who come to support their team or country would know that racist behaviour was counterproductive to their cause. This is the commonsense solution. So will it happen? Of course not. UEFA have already said that nothing will happen before an investigation takes place on July 12th.
An investigation is presumably required to establish that the monkey chants were actually monkey chants and not some inoffensive noise that sounded just like monkey chants. By the time this investigation takes place, the tournament will have been over for nearly three weeks.
However, once the necessary investigation has established for certain that the monkey noises were actually monkey noises, we can then expect to see Serbia banned from taking part in the next Euro U21s. Not likely! This just wouldn’t be in keeping with UEFA’s policy of burying their head in the sand and trying not to do anything too proactive.
A ban is not going to happen. It never does with UEFA. Every racist incident in European football has been met with a paltry fine and no further action and that is exactly what will happen to Serbia. A drawn out investigation will be quietly concluded and UEFA’s mouthy spokesman will claim that the fine is another example of Europe’s governing body getting tough on racism. Meanwhile, Serbia’s mediaeval fans will continue to make their presence known in their own unpleasant way.
The Champions League returned last night with a game that almost began in tragedy but ended in pure farce. A largely uninspiring encounter on the pitch between French club Lille and Manchester United was marked by two rather dramatic incidents. Both will require careful attention from UEFA and could result in the French club being expelled from the competition. And such a result would be far from an overreaction given the events that transpired. The first incident saw police - unaware that a potentially fatal crush was developing - fire tear gas into the end where the United supporters had been herded. The second involved Lille players staging a walk off protest after Ryan Giggs scored the only goal of the match (I could add 'in somewhat controversial circumstances' but as quickly taken freekicks are not prohibited by the rules of the game, I shan't!).
The events surrounding the beginning of the tie provided an ugly reminder of the terrible proceedings at Hillsborough 18 years ago. Whilst United fans were pushed against the high perimeter fences, riot police fired tear gas and swung truncheons at those who, in desperation, tried to climb to safety. The French police, not known for their softly-softly approach, swung their batons with such fervour it was as if they were repelling revolutionary hordes intent on seizing power, not desperate fans trying to escape a potential crush. In scenes reminiscent of the early 1980s, it seemed as though the police had travelled to the game in a time machine, hell-bent on crushing a hooligan element that hasn't been witnessed in English football stadiums for almost 20 years. To say that the policing of the situation was merely a little heavy handed would be a complete misrepresentation of what happened. It would not be out of place to suggest that they totally misread events due to an ill-informed and out-dated collective assumption that crowd trouble and pitch invasions were to be expected when the English came to town.
Of course, serious questions need to be asked as to how so many United fans ended up in one particular end of the ground. The French authorities claim the cause was a number of away fans gaining entry to the stadium with forged tickets. Countering this, United supporters are adamant that the root cause was a security blunder that saw many of them who'd bought tickets to sit with the home fans being rounded up and squeezed into one end of the ground. Neither explanation reflects well on the French club's ability to stage a top-level football match, though the latter would suggest a total failure on their part to implement basic safety measures.
Blame for the incident, however, does not sit squarely at the feet of the French club. UEFA, will no doubt, come down hard on Lille, but they themselves must share responsibility for what happened. United claim they had expressed concerns about the basic facilities at the ground long in advance of the match, but the governing body took no action. Although it would seem ludicrous to allow Lille off scot-free, there is an element of injustice in punishing the club after UEFA themselves were made aware of specific safety issues, yet did nothing. Perhaps now they will move to prevent games being played at stadiums that do not come up to their own safety standards. This, however, is unlikely. Given new UEFA president Michel Platini's desire to see more and more smaller teams involved in the competition, they will probably continue turning a blind eye to obvious safety issues, and merely punish clubs retrospectively when incidents occur.
If, somehow, Lille do escape sanction over stadium safety, they must be punished for the ridiculous and childish reaction of their players following Ryan Giggs’ opening goal. Although only short lived, their unprecedented protest demonstrated a total lack of respect for the sport and the spirit of competition. Whilst, as Alex Ferguson was quick to point out, their actions had the unsavoury effect of whipping up the crowd into something of a frenzy. Ferguson, quite correctly, described it as an obvious attempt to intimidate the referee.
In a rather bizarre effort to defend his team’s behaviour, the Lille president has suggested that it was never anyone's intention to walk away from the match, but what we witnessed was actually an example of how the game is played in France. Apparently, when French teams disagree strongly with a decision they stage a protest at the first available stoppage. Now, it is obviously part of French culture to protest at any given opportunity, but to suggest that disrespectful protests of this nature are an integral part of the game in France is an outright lie. And, in any case, this rather flimsy moral relativism provides scant defence of his team's actions. If accused of stealing, a thief will gain little advantage in court by pleading that he comes from a community of thieves!
UEFA are not known for the fair and even distribution of their punishments and disciplinary decisions are often motivated by the political and financial implications of taking action. However, should they fail to administer an appropriate punishment against Lille, then a rather dangerous precedent will have been established. What a ridiculous situation we would have if teams believed that when in disagreement with the referee, they could escape sanction if they left the pitch in protest. Refereeing mistakes are commonplace in football (not that the referee was mistaken on this occasion), but no match would ever be completed if every error by one of the officials were followed by a silly walk-off.
Platini’s campaign to be elected president of UEFA focused almost entirely on how the big European clubs needed to have their power and influence curtailed. In an ironic twist of fate, his first major act as president will be to deal with a small provincial club from his own country who have brought shame on Europe’s premier sporting competition. Will he be brave enough to throw the book at Lille? Failure to do so could well have drastic consequences for the future of European football.
Following his election as UEFA president, Michel Platini has pledged to lead something of a red revolution, beginning with an overhaul of the Champion’s League format. Former France captain and midfield maestro Platini, saw off competition from the previous incumbent, Leonart Johanssen by pledging to reduce to three the number of Champions' League places allocated to Italy, Spain, Germany and England.
“These countries should have three clubs each in the Champions League so that teams from other leagues that are not in the same financial bracket can compete with them on the pitch. There are not enough champions taking part in the competition. Yes to an open Champions League, no to a closed pseudo-NBA (America's basketball association).”
In contrast to Johanssen, who refused to consider change to a competition that has brought huge prosperity to the game, Platini appears to be advocating good egalitarian principles: equality of opportunity, fair competition and a redistribution of wealth away from the G14. And when couched in these terms, I find myself instinctively sympathizing with his proposals. Saying ‘we’ll take one team from each eastern European country, and 4 from England, Spain, Italy and Germany is a bit like a university with five places to fill saying ‘we’ll take one comprehensive kid and 4 privately educated ones.’ The argument that the privately educated children are simply better at the point of arrival merely perpetuates the inequality. Sometimes a little positive discrimination is, therefore, required to make things fairer.
These are good principles, which when applied to societies improve the lives of the individuals within them. But let’s not get carried away with our philanthropic ideals. My socialism does not compel me to agree with Platini. Careful reflection leads me to the conclusion that Football competitions are very, very different to the societies in which we live.
Notions like ‘equality’ are loaded moral terms, in that we often accept without consideration that equality is preferable to inequality. Our reasoned recognition that racial or social equality is preferable to its alternative can cloud our judgement on other issues. Equality is no moral absolute. Our belief in social or racial equality stems from considerations such as causing hurt or suffering to others is wrong. And we’d do well to remember this when analyzing Platini’s position.
We are dealing here with football clubs and not individuals. Football clubs do not stand in dole queues or have their credit cards rejected in supermarkets. They don’t experience the humiliation and frustration that poverty or discrimination brings about.
But, of course, football clubs are nothing without their fans and fans do surely feel the pain of inequality, when their club is denied their ‘fair share’. This, I grant you, is true. That football competitions should be more egalitarian as a result, however, is a truly ridiculous notion. Sport, by definition, produces winners and losers. If it didn’t, we simply wouldn’t watch it. The Champions’ League is not like sports day at a politically correct primary school, where every child must win a prize. It’s competitive. And we as fans want to watch the very best teams and the very best players. Perhaps, on reflection, Platini would also like to introduce a rule that says when any team goes 3 – nil up, the game must be immediately stopped with the winning team giving the losers a hug to say sorry. Not so ridiculous if the goal is ensuring greater equality between teams.
Perhaps Platini should reflect a little on his motivation for meddling with the format of the Champions’ league. I can’t help but wonder whether he’d be so keen to interfere if the French league had parity with England, Spain, Italy and Germany. With tongue firmly in cheek, I suggest that Platini’s prime motivation requires a contextual explanation. French history is characterized by a paranoid inferiority complex, a deep-rooted fear that they are not as powerful or important as their European neighbours. Throughout history, among those French who have attained positions of power, this fear has manifested itself in thinly disguised attempts to diminish the influence of others whilst claiming justice and equality as their prime motivation. Platini is merely a symptom of an ingrained national characteristic. His attempts to reduce the English, Spanish, German and Italian Champions' League contingent is no more instructed by a desire to protect the good of the game, than the cheese-mongers of Paris who stubbornly refuse to stock good-quality cheddar are motivated by a distaste for the finest cheese on God’s Earth. To understand Platini, we’ll do well to consider Thucydides’ analysis of the Peloponnesian War. ‘Fear, was the principal motive, though honour and self-interest afterwards came in.’
