Damned if you do… damned if you don’t…
As I write, we are in the middle of what has been yet another headline-grabbing week for Chelsea Football Club. 60 minutes into last Sunday’s match with Manchester United, it looked as though the headlines would be about a famous comeback from 2-0 down against one of our title rivals. Now, despite two incredible games of football against the same opponents in the space of three days with an aggregate scoreline of 7-7, we have an investigation into comments which may or may not have been made by a referee dominating the agenda.
The club has been pilloried in many circles this week for their handling of the alleged incident (or incidents) of Sunday’s game. The focus of the criticism has included the arguments that the club should have waited to establish the facts before releasing a statement, and that the club might have been “led down a dark alley” (says one journalist) by its feelings of being wronged over Fernando Torres’ unjust red card.
I was surprised to find myself in a minority in disagreeing with the criticism of the club in the last few days. Taking this incident purely in isolation - and I accept that for many, whether they wear blue or not, this is difficult - I believe that the club has been excellent in its handling of the ‘Clattenburg affair’.
As an employer, if an employee approaches to report what they believe to be an incident of racism, you have a duty to take that claim seriously. People have been attempting to use the “if a regular worker was accused of saying what (for instance) John Terry was accused of saying, they would be suspended pending the results of an investigation” for over a year now, but football is not like other industries. I cannot think of a figure equivalent to a referee outside of a sporting context, except perhaps a judge - an independent arbiter, supposed to keep their cool in the face of impassioned individuals taking part in a contest over which they are presiding.
This was a serious allegation, and the club owed it to Mikel to take him at his word. The reports are that the senior players in the dressing room quizzed those who thought they had heard unsavoury language used and explained in no uncertain terms the seriousness of the allegations.
Once this dressing room summit had taken place, and especially once an angry confrontation had occurred in the referee’s room between Messrs Clattenburg and Mikel, the incident was immediately leaked. Before the club even had a chance to release the interim statement for which it has been criticised, Geoff Shreeves was on Sky Sports News telling of how reports of a black Chelsea player being insulted by the referee were emerging from his sources within the Chelsea dressing room. How can people criticise the club for making a statement and a report on an allegation already in the public domain?
The club then had to think about perception, not necessarily of itself but of the allegation. On Wednesday of this week, three days after the match in question, a well-known sports journalist wrote in the Evening Standard:
“Meanwhile, Chelsea were understood still to be investigating the claims of their players. That’s something you might have imagined the club had done before leaking the allegation of ethnically flavoured inappropriateness within a couple of hours of Clattenburg blowing the final whistle on a controversial 3-2 victory by Manchester United…”
If the club had failed to make any kind of statement, carried out an investigation behind closed doors, and three days later announced that a comment had been alleged to have been made to Mikel and that a complaint would be made, the allegation would be taken far less seriously than if it was reported at the time. The club statement was very carefully worded, simply saying that they had reported an incident to the proper channels. This was absolutely the correct course of action.
They were then able to conduct an internal investigation, which it was absolutely possible would have come to the conclusion that there was no case to be answered. The club would then have held its hands up, apologised for any misunderstanding, and hoped that no more came of it. The club would have been very aware of the risk to Mr Clattenburg’s reputation, because allegations like racism tend to stick whether they are proven or not, and would have wanted to ensure a swift response. This, they got. Their external legal counsel reviewed the evidence available, conducted interviews, and advised the club that there was enough scope with which to proceed with a formal complaint.
An escalation to the Metropolitan Police Service was not of the club’s doing - this arose out of a complaint made by a member of the public.
The club acted in accordance with all correct protocols and took its actions in a considered and responsible manner. If the allegation turns out to have been unfounded, it should not be regarded as egg on the face of Chelsea Football Club, nor should the club be criticised for making their initial statement, making their initial report or taking their time to carry out an internal investigation.
———-
The above article was written by Ashley Connick (@AshleyConnick). All thoughts are welcome via twitter and the comment section below.
I’m really not convinced that Chelsea deliberately leaked this to begin with as has been implied. Unnamed sources is quite often a ploy used to add credibility to reports that are ofttimes speculative. In this case, perhaps the source was the reporter himself doing his job of observing the human diastrophism and drawing a conclusion, in this case, a reasonably accurate one.
It’s unfortunate that accusations of racism stick with the accused, true or not. You’re quite correct in saying that Chelsea, as an employer, has to lodge a complaint. It’s a unfortunate that the cynics and other partisans out there think they have no business lodging a complaint at all in light of the unfortunate John Terry affair. But Chelsea is duty and honour bound to do so. If Clattenberg is exonerated, then that should be the end of it, but unfortunately, he’ll be unfairly tainted by the mere accusation and Chelsea will be unfairly pilloried for hypocrasy and worse.
As an American, I’ve found this whole process in England regarding racism in sports a bit odd to begin with, especially the racially motivated public order offense prosecution. I wrote about my bewilderment with this on my blog last year: How could an athlete be prosecuted for what is said on the field of play? A lot of stuff is said on the pitch, on the court, in the heat of the moment. And in American sports, any racist or racist-sounding remark would be swiftly dealt with by the parties involved….for example, had this happened in the States, Little Anton would punched John Terry in the fackin’ mouth…let the ref red card them both for fighting, and let the league fine them. And lesson learned perhaps. But John Terry will carry this stigma of being a racist when he’s not….how could he possibly lead a club like if he were….I mean, Didier Drogba would have kicked his ass long ago if was.
So right or wrong, both Chelsea and Clattenberg are screwed here no matter what. Going forward, I would put the onus on the FA to make some significant changes….a Rooney Rule, while window dressing, would be a great start, since if you look at the NFL since the Rooney Rule, there are a lot more black head coaches. And while they are at it, why are all the refs white dudes?? Where are the black refs and why is the FA and Refs Association doing nothing to promote more racial equality? And finally, it seems a duplicitous to me that racially insulting speech is prosecuted, but not speech insulting to women…why it is okay to say fucking cunt, but not okay to say fucking black cunt? It shouldn’t be okay, but no one seems to make a stink about demeaning women.