Jonathan Wilson has an article up questioning the wisdom of a knee-jerk expulsion for Serbia from UEFA following their response to allegations Danny Rose was racially abused by fans in a U21 match. While I agree with the argument that expulsion should be a last-resort strategy, I disagree with Wilson’s underlying reasoning:
Many in England have called for Serbia to be expelled from European competition. After the hooliganism that forced the abandonment of the Italy v Serbia Euro 2012 qualifier in Genoa, it’s easy to understand why. The danger is that doing so pushes Serbian football further into fuck-you isolationism. The truth is that many in Serbian football are appalled by what has happened, about the self-destructiveness that seems to pervade their game at every level, but the statement released on Wednesday by the FSS fails to reflect that.
The situation is similar in some ways to when English football clubs were expelled indefinitely from UEFA competition following the 1985 stand collapse at Heysel, killing 39 Juventus supporters. It would be a gross oversimplification of history to suggest that the ban itself directly contributed to the gentrification of club football in England (Hillsborough and the Taylor Report played a far greater role), but it did at least increase the motivation for those who still loved the game but were appalled by the culture of violence it engendered to reclaim their stake in the domestic game.
A similar expulsion might encourage those voices of moderation in Serbian football (I know they exist based on my Twitter account alone) to reclaim their FA and encourage an end to racial abuse in international football matches. In matters as serious as this, UEFA can ill afford to repeatedly hand out carrots without sticks.
UEFA should give a lifetime ban to ultras and affiliated supporter groups in every FA (mainly ultra right-wing). This minority of people are the scum of the Earth in footballing culture and won’t be missed
Excuse me, but I seem to have misunderstood you. You seem to have used a ban from competitions to English clubs/national teams caused by a tragedy that caused the death of 39 people for justifying a ban that would have as underlying causes some stupid racist chants. Am I right to think this? Please tell me I am wrong.
Granted, left alone, this situation is a bomb ready to explode. There are, however, many differences. One of them lays simply on the resources. English football had the resources to stop hooliganism and racist attitudes: money for campaigns, changing stadiums, placing cameras in and around stadiums, etc. Serbia, however, has been on a Greece-style recession for the past decade. This means there are no funds to repair stadiums, let alone to police fans or ban them.
It is absolutely true that UEFA must take an action: carrots should be handed in the form of funding to campaigns and better conditions of stadiums (with oversight from UEFA to reduce local corruption); and also sticks: banning individuals involved in unacceptable behaviour (notice that many times, once the ringleaders are removed, the crowd quiets down) as well as playing matches behind close doors.
Banning will indeed just bring about the reaction Jonathan Wilson mentions. Slavs are fiercely proud people who do not take what they see as external offenses well. Serbs have been subjected to what they see as several humiliations for years (Kosovo, war criminals being sent to The Hague, etc) and this would be one more. Considering that the people are not necessarily racist but are taking their frustrations on the easiest targets, the key word here should be prevention, not simply or only punishment.
Besides, coming from a country (England) who stood by a player calling another one (brother of a national teammate) a “fucking black cunt”, any indignation is considerably hypocritical.
You made some fairly major moral equivocations here, so it’s worth taking the time to point them out here.
You wrote:
“You seem to have used a ban from competitions to English clubs/national teams caused by a tragedy that caused the death of 39 people for justifying a ban that would have as underlying causes some stupid racist chants. Am I right to think this? Please tell me I am wrong.”
I think you know you’re wrong. I did nothing of the sort. First, I pointed out that the ban should be a last resort, and should only depend on the continued refusal of the Serbian FA to even acknowledge that anything happened well before we knew anything concrete about what happened. The calls for a police investigation by the Serbian PM today alone should obviously take any such ban off the table. Moreover, your trivialization of racial abuse (“stupid racist chants”) indicates you yourself may not grasp the seriousness of the actions. If you don’t understand how offensive it is, then I won’t be able to convince you here.
Moreover, I clearly made reference to the effects of the ban, not the cause. You’re the one who’s confused them, so yes, you’re wrong.
As for your economic argument, it holds no water. The “money” in English football for the improvements you mention came largely from the establishment of the Premier League in 1992, which took advantage of the Taylor Report’s call for all-seater stadia in England. This, you’ll note, had nothing to do with the UEFA ban, and more to do with the events following Hillsborough. This is exactly what I wrote:
“It would be a gross oversimplification of history to suggest that the ban itself directly contributed to the gentrification of club football in England (Hillsborough and the Taylor Report played a far greater role), but it did at least increase the motivation for those who still loved the game but were appalled by the culture of violence it engendered to reclaim their stake in the domestic game.”
This was my argument: a ban might, in theory, force moderate Serbian fans to help pressure the FA to respond to the issue, rather than ignore it. I didn’t make any arguments about improved infrastructure. Moreover, you confuse these moderate elements with the entirety of the country when you claim, rather incredibly, that non-racist Serbs would become more racist because of a UEFA ban.
Finally, your final point is idiotic. A single, English footballer using a racial epithet in a soccer game isn’t the same as an FA refusing to take action after fans racially abuse a player. Terry you’ll recall underwent both a criminal trial and an FA investigation, the latter of which punished him, as did his club. This already far exceeds the accountability of the Serbian FA.
Well, I would have been happy with a simple explanation of your points had it not been for the unpleasant attitude with which you stated them.
Let me point your mistakes:
1. You write, in the comment: “I pointed out that the ban should be a last resort, and should only depend on the continued refusal of the Serbian FA to even acknowledge that anything happened”. Actually, you wrote nothing of the sort. The reference to the Serbian FA comes only at the end, when you hope that the ban/expulsion would help the moderates. Notice that from your text you imply that the change would come about by the expulsion. Not very pedagogic, I would say.
2. Trivialization of the issue? I am a Portuguese living in the Netherlands and have a fairly dark skin. I guarantee you that, whatever you read about the country, I do suffer from racism and xenophobia on a daily basis. Please do not make assumptions about me.
3. Cause of the ban? You invite the ban from the racism manifestations/actions (you seem to take issue with the expression “stupid racist chants”). Possibly also because of the racist chants in the past or the violence in the match against Italy. All good causes to place the issue of the ban on the table. But you do refer the causes, not only the consequences.
4. I may not have made myself clear. Whether the money revenues come from the formation of the EPL or not is immaterial. The fight against racism in England has been successful largely because of the funds invested. Some directly on that fight (through campaigns) some other indirectly (better stadiums, presence of cameras). Either way, money plays a big role in this issue, whether you recognize or not.
5. You directly established the comparison between Heysel and the situation from Monday. You wrote: “The situation is similar in some ways to when English football clubs were expelled (…) following (…) Heysel.” Maybe you just did not make your thoughts clear. The association from what you wrote, however, is absolutely logic. And no, you made no arguments about improved infrastructure. I never claimed you did. I made those points as a much better alternative to any ban.
6. “you claim, rather incredibly, that non-racist Serbs would become more racist because of a UEFA ban”. If that’s what you conclude from what I read, I insist you reread my words again. It’s short: “the people are not necessarily racist but are taking their frustrations on the easiest targets”. I never write they would be more or less racists. I made myself abundantly clear. Read that part again. Maybe you do not agree, but please do make an effort to understand what I write.
7. (and last). You made no point of the actions the Serbian FA should take, so your comment on this point is invalid. Still, my point remains the same: John Terry insulted racially another player. The only thing the English FA did was remove his captaincy. Whilst he awaited criminal trial, they saw fit to take him to the Euro and behaved ridiculously towards Rio Ferdinand. Later, they gave him only a 4 matches ban. With this in mind, they should not call this loudly for a ban. A complaint before UEFA would be the right action.
You seem to suffer from a typical pundit problem: lack of tolerance to others’ opinions. It also seems to hinder your reading abilities. Hope this gets better.
Forgot one point. I read the blog every day and do enjoy reading you, even when I disagree with your opinions. The reaction to my comment was rather disappointing. I know you do not care much, it’s just a point I wanted to make.
I do care, I only argued to your points, not you!
Dear Richard,
it’s good to know you care. I was upset with the tone of your comment. I imagine you were with mine, otherwise it’s unlikely you would have answered as you did. Let’s leave it at that.
Concerning the arguments, I have absolutely nothing against you disagreeing (I hope I made myself clear on that), but I DID argue your points. I cannot read your mind, only what you write. And from what you wrote, those were the conclusions I reached. That’s why I was so amazed and that’s why I asked you to please tell me I was wrong. i was. Good.
Still regarding the arguments, you only mentioned the consequences of a ban. I disagree with your view of these. That’s why I offered an alternative. This is a sterile discussion, since UEFA will never read this. Nevertheless, it does not hurt to be more constructive.
PS – I would take the statements from the Serbian PM with more than a grain of salt. He is a politician, probably pandering to the masses (actually, his statement, more than anything else, shows that the society at large is appalled with the violent/racist behavior). Changing the FA will be a much more complicated issue, strongly dependent on tackling corruption in Serbia.
Joao I like our ideas. It is absolutely true that UEFA must take an action: carrots should be handed in the form of funding to campaigns and better conditions of stadiums (with oversight from UEFA to reduce local corruption); and also sticks: banning individuals involved in unacceptable behaviour (notice that many times, once the ringleaders are removed, the crowd quiets down) as well as playing matches behind close doors.
It’s a large issue and bringing more diversity to the schools in Serbia may help some. Big discussion. Fines though do nothing.
Art, I do like the idea of promoting diversity, but it is a complicated issue in Serbia. They have mainly three clear minorities: Muslims (usually with some kind of Bosnian background), Albanians (it’s not only in Kosovo) and Gypsies/Roma. From these, the gypsies have the hardest situation, since they are seen as opportunists by the society and in response retreat evermore from it. It is a vicious circle. Albanians who speak good serbian receive more of a lower intensity racism/xenophobia (not dissimilar to that foreigners end up receiving all over Europe). Muslims usually are the ones better off in these three groups. Not seen as “good” Serbs, but still perfectly integrated.
There are also Hungarians, Romanians and other minorities, but these are located in specific regions and are usually perfectly integrated.
The problem is that even a better integration in schools would not change much in relation to black people. In the past Belgrade would have many african students (going to the university through the support of Tito to other communist countries) and they had very few problems. Such a situation is what took Theodor Gebre Selassie’s father to the Czech Republic. Nowadays, due to the bad economical situation in Serbia, they have fewer black people around. And the lack of tolerance becomes even more noticeable in impoverished smaller cities away from Belgrade. Not by coincidence, it was in such a city that Monday’s events took place.