Suarez ban

[Goat Boy]

what he said is unacceptable in England.

Since when have the words negrita and sudaca been unacceptable in England?

Is making reference to a players race on the football pitch acceptable then?

[The Modernist]

what he said is unacceptable in England.

Since when have the words negrita and sudaca been unacceptable in England?

Making a derogatory reference to someone, even if the term itself is relatively mild, by way of their skin colour is wrong and has been unacceptable in our society for decades.

[bhoywonder]

what he said is unacceptable in England.

Since when have the words negrita and sudaca been unacceptable in England?

Making a derogatory reference to someone, even if the term itself is relatively mild, by way of their skin colour is wrong and has been unacceptable in our society for decades.

Although not to everyone.

[andymacandy]

If the FA are going to draw a line, then it needs to be a line, and applied evenly.
Whatever has gone on before, this sets the standard for the future, and it must be maintained,
or Suarez will have genuine cause for complaint.

Will the FA have the bollocks for it?Unlikely.

[Penk!]

I'd go along with this. I don't necessarily think Suarez is racist but what he said is unacceptable in England.

I want consistency though.

Yes.

Re Terry, he's facing criminal charges; the FA might think it's not their business any more, although if he is found guilty in the courts then I imagine he will be hit with a ban or other punishment.

[andymacandy]

I'd go along with this. I don't necessarily think Suarez is racist but what he said is unacceptable in England.

I want consistency though.

Yes.

Re Terry, he's facing criminal charges; the FA might think it's not their business any more, although if he is found guilty in the courts then I imagine he will be hit with a ban or other punishment.

Unless he's jailed, and thus misses games that way (hugely unlikely) then the FA simply have to ban him.
If for no other reason than it allows them to show some backbone at no risk.

[Thesiger]

Unless he's jailed, and thus misses games that way (hugely unlikely) then the FA simply have to ban him.

Maximum sentence - a £2500 fine.

[Spock!]

Interesting article in goal.com

http://www.goal.com/en/news/1717/editorial/2011/12/22/2813532/whats-in-a-word-the-furore-over-luis-suarezs-racism-ban


Liverpool's Luis Suarez should have known better, but his racism ban exposes a lack of cultural understanding by the English FA



The hysteria that has erupted over the star's suspension both in England and in Uruguay has been as harmful for the FA as it has been for the former Ajax star



COMMENT
By Daniel Edwards in Buenos Aires

It was a situation the likes of which one experiences every day in the Argentine capital of Buenos Aires. Lining up behind an attractive, olive-skinned girl in her mid-20s in a store, in the middle of a December heatwave which pushed the mercury towards 37°C and waiting patiently as the stranger bought a box of Marlboro cigarettes. The clerk passed back her change with a smile, and the salutation "Gracias, negra".

A completely innocuous, mundane interaction, but one that stuck in the mind due to the events that followed a matter of minutes later. On the same day, and at almost exactly the same time as that exchange, Uruguayan forward Luis Suarez was receiving an eight-match ban for saying the same word to Patrice Evra on the other side of the world in England.

It is not the purpose of this article to assign blame, to condone or crucify Suarez or to call Evra's reputation as a footballer into disrepute. The pair are both professionals at the very top of their chosen career, so to descend into simple conclusions - as the temptation has been for many in the sport and in the media - is lazy and poor journalism. But to every story there is two sides, and in South America and especially Luis's home nation, the reaction has been of utter disbelief.

"Senseless", was Sebastian Abreu's word to describe the lengthy suspension, while Uruguay captain Diego Lugano went even further in calling it a "grave error", and accusing Evra of breaking football's unwritten code of what happens on the pitch, stays on the pitch. The Uruguayan government even commented in favour of their striker, but perhaps one of the most considered arguments was provided by Lazio's Alvaro Gonzalez.

"In Uruguay we use terms that can be misinterpreted and all of us who know Luis know that he wouldn't have made the comment as a defamatory remark," he said in quotes published by Ovacion.

"You can't call a Uruguayan racist because of that ... perhaps we are paying the price for going to live in different cultures."

The word in question, negro, understandably appears ugly and bigoted when laid down on paper in English. As demonstrated by the anecdote at the start of this article, however, in Uruguay as in Argentina and much of Latin America it is considered a neutral, even familiar term. Friends, sons, daughters, parents are addressed with the phrase, or its diminutive negrito/a, whether they are mixed-race or of African or even European descent.

It is not the language of politicians or diplomats, admittedly, indeed little one hears inside the lines of a football pitch would be suitable in the debating chamber of the UN. But it is the product of a society and continent in which the process of nation and population-building has made traditional labels almost superfluous.

Some four per cent of the country's three million population claim African descent, a proportion double that of the United Kingdom and not including those of mixed heritage, believed to number around 10 per cent. This group have been settled and integrated in Uruguayan society for up to 400 years, and have left an indelible imprint on the nation's culture, music and language. Suarez himself has an Afro-Uruguayan grandfather, and he is carrying on a grand tradition of multiculturalism in the Celeste football team.

Uruguay withstood strong protest to field black players in the 1916 Copa America, a full 63 years before Viv Anderson took the pitch to become England's first black international. The history of the country's football success is littered with great players of African or mixed descent; and many, such as 1950 captain Obdulio Varela, are still remembered fondly as 'El Negro'.

In this context, then, some would argue that a misunderstanding of intent and a linguistic confusion can be considered as the culprit, one for which Suarez has paid for heavily. Others would say that having lived in England for almost a year, the Uruguayan should have known by now that the Spanish word he has grown up with as neutral and even affectionate his whole life was co-opted by British and American slavers in the 18th Century as a synonym for African people, and used frequently until becoming taboo in the 1960s civil rights struggle. Suarez should have been made aware of this fact either internally by Liverpool Football Club, or externally by an association such as the English Football Association (FA) or the Professional Footballers' Association. Did any of these organisations explain this to him before the incident in question? This writer would like to know.

"We are indignant about the appearance of this decision ... it is absolutely disproportionate"



- The Uruguay government condemns the FA


Despite the overwhelming support for Suarez in South America, the intention has not been to paint Uruguay and Argentina as colour-blind paradises, far from it. Racism and racist comments are no rarer than anywhere else in the world, although more often directed towards nationalities rather than ethnicities. The fact that in Buenos Aires the term Boliviano or Paraguayo when referring to immigrants from that country can be much more pejorative than the word negro, is a cultural anomaly hard to interpret for someone unfamiliar with the culture, and migrants from South America are no strangers to similar discrimination elsewhere.

It has been widely alleged, for example, that Evra called Suarez a "South American" or "Sudaca" before receiving his perceived insult, and the latter especially is horribly demeaning for those from that continent who have chosen to pursue their lives in Europe.

It is equally unfair to say that Evra, perhaps not versed in the history and etymology of the word in its Spanish, Latin-American context, was wrong to take offence at Suarez's language.

Within that context, however, the word can offend as well. Yes, negrito is often a term of endearment, but that hardly seems likely on a football field where provocations are plentiful and insults inherent. Although Suarez may insist he meant 'mate', Evra clearly is not his friend and the use of negro in this case did not form part of an amicable exchange, especially if, as claimed, it came in response to the term "Sudaca" which, with or without context, is an insult itself and about as defamatory as it gets with respect to Latin American heritage and race. If it is indeed proven that Evra used this insult, then the Frenchman deserves exactly the same punishment as Suarez, be it zero, two, four, or the current sentence of an eight-game suspension.


There is of course no place for racial insults, however intended, in modern football with the strides it has taken in extracting this cancer in the last 25 years.

But, as Tim Vickery mentioned in an excellent article on the same subject before the ruling, the FA had a perfect chance to demonstrate their ability to adapt to the demands of modern football. Taking Suarez in front of the board, explaining that such language can be construed in negative ways in England and handing out a light warning would have sent the player a clear message while not castigating him for his linguistic faux pas.

In throwing the book at the Uruguayan, however, the governing body has demonstrated an ignorance and clumsiness when faced with cultural sensitivities which has made it the object of outrage in one of the world's most inclusive football nations. Especially as there has apparently been no investigation into Evra for the alleged use of an equally derogatory word. The FA cannot treat one culture with more sensitivity than another.

Nevertheless, Suarez has been made to look ignorant and clumsy, too. And whatever his intentions were at Anfield on that day in mid-October, he really should have known better in the first place.

[Rated B]

Good to see Liverpool fans at their usual high level of classy behaviour...

http://twitter.com/#!/StanCollymore/favorites

Cunts.

[Penk!]

Suarez has previous with lengthy suspensions: I read yesterday that when he joined Liverpool, he was in fact in the middle of a seven-game ban in the Dutch league. For biting an opponent.

[Geezee]

Worth posting Liverpool's statement:

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.

We look forward to the publication of the Commission's Judgment. We will study the detailed reasons of the Commission once they become available, but reserve our right to appeal or take any other course of action we feel appropriate with regards to this situation.

We find it extraordinary that Luis can be found guilty on the word of Patrice Evra alone when no-one else on the field of play - including Evra's own Manchester United teammates and all the match officials - heard the alleged conversation between the two players in a crowded Kop goalmouth while a corner kick was about to be taken.

The Club takes extremely seriously the fight against all forms of discrimination and has a long and successful track record in work relating to anti-racist activity and social inclusion. We remain committed to this ideal and equality for all, irrespective of a person's background.

LFC considers racism in any form to be unacceptable - without compromise. It is our strong held belief, having gone over the facts of the case, that Luis Suarez did not commit any racist act. It is also our opinion that the accusation by this particular player was not credible - certainly no more credible than his prior unfounded accusations.

It is key to note that Patrice Evra himself in his written statement in this case said 'I don't think that Luis Suarez is racist'. The FA in their opening remarks accepted that Luis Suarez was not racist.

Luis himself is of a mixed race family background as his grandfather was black. He has been personally involved since the 2010 World Cup in a charitable project which uses sport to encourage solidarity amongst people of different backgrounds with the central theme that the colour of a person's skin does not matter; they can all play together as a team.

He has played with black players and mixed with their families whilst with the Uruguay national side and was Captain at Ajax Amsterdam of a team with a proud multi-cultural profile, many of whom became good friends.

It seems incredible to us that a player of mixed heritage should be accused and found guilty in the way he has based on the evidence presented. We do not recognise the way in which Luis Suarez has been characterised.

It appears to us that the FA were determined to bring charges against Luis Suarez, even before interviewing him at the beginning of November. Nothing we have heard in the course of the hearing has changed our view that Luis Suarez is innocent of the charges brought against him and we will provide Luis with whatever support he now needs to clear his name.

We would also like to know when the FA intend to charge Patrice Evra with making abusive remarks to an opponent after he admitted himself in his evidence to insulting Luis Suarez in Spanish in the most objectionable of terms. Luis, to his credit, actually told the FA he had not heard the insult.

Some interesting points there including Evra insulting Suarez in Spanish but getting nothing, Suarez being of mixed heritage (though not strictly relevant) and Evra saying that he didn't think Suarez was racist.

If Suarez can get a 8 match ban without a scrap of evidence what the hell will John Terry receive? He must be crapping himself.

whatever the ins and outs of this, it's a remarkably bizarre, unprofessional and undignified response from Liverpool - and one that i really would not have expected from a team under Dalgleish. you can support your player in any number of ways, but this statement - and the whole T-shirt farce - is certainly not the way to go. if the situation were reversed i'd be utterly embarrassed if Man Utd acted in the same way and i'm frankly amazed that Liverpool are apparently getting away with this response.

i'm not sure if this parallel has been made elsewhere but my thoughts were drawn to the despicable behaviour of the Spanish FA when Aragones uttered his words about Henry. There was a big hoo-ha in the UK about that, and rightly so. Alot of Spanish/Latam people were offended that their cultural context was not being taken into account with this - but it seems like bollocks to me.

[trans-chigley express]

Well, given that he admitted calling Evra a "negrito" (a "little black man") I'd say he's guilty as charged. I've seen a few commentators who are familiar with Uruguayan culture ...

I lived in Latin America for over 8 years. Negrito/Negrita is common parlance. And it may sometimes be used pejoratively, and other times affectionately c.f. Hey, Negrita (Jagger - Richards).

The punishment looks ridiculous because (1) the exchange of words was not documented or recorded; (2) Evra admitted insulting Suarez; (3) the imputed 'crime' has been punished out of all proportion to the going rate for violent acts against the person committed on the field.

It's hysterical overreaction like this that makes one almost side with Sepp Blatter.

I was speaking to a South American this week and he mentioned that he found it laughable every time he heard news reports of Saurez 'racially abusing' Evra. He regarded the term as more affectionate than pejorative (although I doubt Saurez used it affectionately and was likely using it in a 'sledging' manner). He said that what Evra called Suarez was by far the more offensive term. To Suarez's credit he never made a deal about that although he easily could have to get his own back.

The 8 games is very harsh but I suspect the FA thought an appeal was inevitable and wanted to give themselves some leeway for reduction. My guess it will be reduced to 6. As Owen said on the Liverpool thread the guy looks like he needs a break anyway.

To cap it all he now has another one game ban for giving the finger to Fulham fans. Not that I disagree with the one match ban but has any other player received a suspension for doing that?

This, of course, is the best way to give the boo boys the finger:

[Owen]

Well, given that he admitted calling Evra a "negrito" (a "little black man") I'd say he's guilty as charged. I've seen a few commentators who are familiar with Uruguayan culture ...

I lived in Latin America for over 8 years. Negrito/Negrita is common parlance. And it may sometimes be used pejoratively, and other times affectionately c.f. Hey, Negrita (Jagger - Richards).

The punishment looks ridiculous because (1) the exchange of words was not documented or recorded; (2) Evra admitted insulting Suarez; (3) the imputed 'crime' has been punished out of all proportion to the going rate for violent acts against the person committed on the field.

It's hysterical overreaction like this that makes one almost side with Sepp Blatter.

I was speaking to a South American this week and he mentioned that he found it laughable every time he heard news reports of Saurez 'racially abusing' Evra. He regarded the term as more affectionate than pejorative (although I doubt Saurez used it affectionately and was likely using it in a 'sledging' manner). He said that what Evra called Suarez was by far the more offensive term. To Suarez's credit he never made a deal about that although he easily could have to get his own back.

The 8 games is very harsh but I suspect the FA thought an appeal was inevitable and wanted to give themselves some leeway for reduction. My guess it will be reduced to 6. As Owen said on the Liverpool thread the guy looks like he needs a break anyway.

To cap it all he now has another one game ban for giving the finger to Fulham fans. Not that I disagree with the one match ban but has any other player received a suspension for doing that?

This, of course, is the best way to give the boo boys the finger:

A south American who feels comfortable using terms for blacks is bound to find a derogatory term for south Americans worse isnt he

I think the south American term is a derogatory racial epithet but it's not one that has much context in the uk or one that much of the public would see as 'racist' or that (possibly) falls under the fa s rules. maybe in Spain it carries some weight, although I'd imagine a lot of spanish people would be making the same 'it's banter' excuses that Suarez defenders have been about his words and which racists everywhere always have made so I doubt if it gets acted on very much in spanish football

I think the ban is probably excessive but that the reaction of the club has been awful

[trans-chigley express]

I think the ban is probably excessive but that the reaction of the club has been awful

I'm not too happy with their response either. I agree that they should appeal - any club would - but I'd rather they'd done it without all the hoo-hah.

[Rorschach]

Suárez shouldn't have received a ban at all. The FA, as usual, has just made up a new rule and in this case without having the faintest idea what they were judging.

One mistake that a lot of people seem to be making is in assuming that "negrito" is somehow related to "nigger" in English and it really isn't. "Nigger" is a purjorative word for a black person that carries a huge amount of cultural baggage. "Negrito" is the diminutive (and cute) form of a word for a black person. As anyone who has studied another language in any depth knows, you can't just translate word for word.
A few years ago the manager of the Spanish national team referred to Thiery Henry as a "Negro de mierda" or "Black piece of shit". That would be nearer to "nigger". Sadly, he got away scot free.
Mind you, "sudaca" is considered a pretty serious insult here. I couldn't say for Uruguay or France.

But the point is that the FA is in no way competent to decide on the linguistic or cultural subtleties of what passed between the two of them and there was no rule in place to deal with the situation. The FA should admit this and make a rule to cover future cases e.g. Any insult based on a player's race, ethnicity or country of origin will be treated as racist and punished accordingly.
I think that's going to be a tough one to work with but at least there will be a rule to refer to instead of just making something up based on a typically British narrow-minded view of how things ought to be.

[Thesiger]

But the point is that the FA is in no way competent to decide on the linguistic or cultural subtleties of what passed between the two of them and there was no rule in place to deal with the situation. The FA should admit this and make a rule to cover future cases e.g. Any insult based on a player's race, ethnicity or country of origin will be treated as racist and punished accordingly.

Indeed, Tym. It's not even clear in which language(s) the exchange took place. Did Evra, a French-speaker, do his homework beforehand in order to learn the meaning of 'sudaca' and bone up on retaliatory responses e.g. (negrito) from a Spanish speaker? Or did they discuss these matters in imperfect English, throwing in the relevant insults in the vernacular? The FA simply isn't fit to rule on such matters. And it's not as if they even had a recording or transcript to seek advice upon from more expert sources.

[trans-chigley express]

I think Evra speaks Spanish so I guess the exchange took place entirely in that language. I could be wrong.

[Penk!]

Evra certainly seemed to take it as a bit of harmless affection. Not at all an attempt to anger him. Oh no.

[Owen]

Suárez shouldn't have received a ban at all. The FA, as usual, has just made up a new rule and in this case without having the faintest idea what they were judging.

One mistake that a lot of people seem to be making is in assuming that "negrito" is somehow related to "nigger" in English and it really isn't. "Nigger" is a purjorative word for a black person that carries a huge amount of cultural baggage. "Negrito" is the diminutive (and cute) form of a word for a black person. As anyone who has studied another language in any depth knows, you can't just translate word for word.
A few years ago the manager of the Spanish national team referred to Thiery Henry as a "Negro de mierda" or "Black piece of shit". That would be nearer to "nigger". Sadly, he got away scot free.
Mind you, "sudaca" is considered a pretty serious insult here. I couldn't say for Uruguay or France.

But the point is that the FA is in no way competent to decide on the linguistic or cultural subtleties of what passed between the two of them and there was no rule in place to deal with the situation. The FA should admit this and make a rule to cover future cases e.g. Any insult based on a player's race, ethnicity or country of origin will be treated as racist and punished accordingly.
I think that's going to be a tough one to work with but at least there will be a rule to refer to instead of just making something up based on a typically British narrow-minded view of how things ought to be.

Was there any need to make reference to the colour of his skin at all? Would it have been okay for Carragher, for example, to repeatedly refer to him as "black lad"? After all, "black" is not a racist word in itself and "lad" is often a term of affection in Liverpool.

Suarez knew what he was doing.

Exactly,

i doubt if the FA has a list of acceptable and unacceptable words, any reference to someones skin colour on the field of play that gets reported (and admitted to by suarez) is bound to be breaking the rules and under their jurisdiction.

whether the south american comments are just as bad or worse neither Suarez or an official made a complaint about them. You could argue that if in the course of the hearing it was established they were said then maybe evra needs a ban as well but suarez still doesn't have a leg to stand on

[Geezee]

Suárez shouldn't have received a ban at all. The FA, as usual, has just made up a new rule and in this case without having the faintest idea what they were judging.

One mistake that a lot of people seem to be making is in assuming that "negrito" is somehow related to "nigger" in English and it really isn't. "Nigger" is a purjorative word for a black person that carries a huge amount of cultural baggage. "Negrito" is the diminutive (and cute) form of a word for a black person. As anyone who has studied another language in any depth knows, you can't just translate word for word.
A few years ago the manager of the Spanish national team referred to Thiery Henry as a "Negro de mierda" or "Black piece of shit". That would be nearer to "nigger". Sadly, he got away scot free.
Mind you, "sudaca" is considered a pretty serious insult here. I couldn't say for Uruguay or France.

But the point is that the FA is in no way competent to decide on the linguistic or cultural subtleties of what passed between the two of them and there was no rule in place to deal with the situation. The FA should admit this and make a rule to cover future cases e.g. Any insult based on a player's race, ethnicity or country of origin will be treated as racist and punished accordingly.
I think that's going to be a tough one to work with but at least there will be a rule to refer to instead of just making something up based on a typically British narrow-minded view of how things ought to be.

Was there any need to make reference to the colour of his skin at all? Would it have been okay for Carragher, for example, to repeatedly refer to him as "black lad"? After all, "black" is not a racist word in itself and "lad" is often a term of affection in Liverpool.

Suarez knew what he was doing.

Exactly,

i doubt if the FA has a list of acceptable and unacceptable words, any reference to someones skin colour on the field of play that gets reported (and admitted to by suarez) is bound to be breaking the rules and under their jurisdiction.

whether the south american comments are just as bad or worse neither Suarez or an official made a complaint about them. You could argue that if in the course of the hearing it was established they were said then maybe evra needs a ban as well but suarez still doesn't have a leg to stand on

...and regardless of whether the FA or incompetent or not, i sincerely doubt that they would come to this decision in a vacuum without consulting a variety of authorities first. Rorschach makes the common mistake as well of just assuming that the N word in English is a "bad word" - when its original meaning was not (eg. Nigger of Narcissus etc), and it has since been taken over by black people in a positive way...and i sincerely doubt if it was used in that latter context that anyone would have a problem with it (though it still makes me uncomfortable).

I've heard loads of people refer to their "South American friends" who claim there is no racist connotation in what was said and are up in arms about the UK's PC-fetish (and i heard the same argument over the Aragones debacle) - and it is certainly not as clearcut as that. I've heard just as many local commentators argue precisely the opposite - they acknowledge that it's used very frequently, but not that it is "accepted" as completely non-volatile...which is precisely why it is by no means used by politicians or business leaders. again, I'm fairly confident the FA would have done their research on this - or perhaps i'm giving them too much credit.