Copyright© 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 The AFA and London Society of Association Referees established 2006
Further reflections on the Suarez case
The FA's "Independent" Commission has issued its 151 page report on the Ezra v Suarez
incident. The media seized upon the report to brand Suarez as a racist.
Yet reading through the full report, and despite not being a Liverpool supporter, I believe a
truly independent reviewer would come to the conclusion that:-
(i) the verdict could not be justified by the evidence.
(ii) the 8 match suspension, even if guilty, was excessive on any reasonable criteria,
(iii) Evra should also have been charged for his initial insult to Suarez.
(iv) the Liverpool legal team did not do their client justice.
What are the facts?
In a Liverpool v Manchester United game, Suarez, a Uraguayan was in conversation with Evra, a
Frenchman, both speaking in Spanish. Evra started the exchange with an insult against Suarez's
sister (which is unprintable here). He then told teammates, Alex Ferguson and the referee that
Suarez in reply had called him "nigger". And in a TV interview, claimed that Suarez had called
him "negro"10 times.
Suarez admits using the word "negro" once -
racial insults. Language experts hired by the FA prosecution said that in South America: “The
use of ‘negro’ as described here by Mr Suarez would not be offensive. Indeed, it is possible that
the term was intended as an attempt at conciliation and/or to establish rapport”.
This evidence was somehow disregarded by the Commission in reaching their decision and
went unreported in most media following the publication of the report.
There was no evidence or corroborating witness statements confirming the number of times
Suarez said “negro”. There was nothing but Patrice Evra’s word.
The entire case came down to one man’s word against another’s.
Unreliable evidence
So the Commission spent much time trying to establish that Suarez’s testimony was
“unreliable”. The Commission found Evra "an impressive witness", but Suarez "not as
impressive as Evra". But Evra gave his evidence in English. Suarez was disadvantaged by not
speaking English and had to use an interpreter.
The report cites two areas of inconsistency in Suarez’s accounts -
events (although the panel said this was understandable given that Suarez, unlike Evra, was not
allowed to see the video footage while being interviewed, and thus relied on memory).
Secondly, the Commission said it could not accept Suarez's behaviour as “conciliatory and
friendly” given that “the players were engaged in argument”.
However the Commission failed to take into account Ezra's “unreliable evidence” – namely
his withdrawn initial claim that he was repeatedly called “nigger” (he later conceded it was the
Spanish “negro”), and his withdrawn claim that Suarez said the racial ‘N-
times”. These inconsistencies are at the heart of the allegations (and the ultimate severity of the punishment) unlike the arguably more minor inconsistencies in Suarez’s account.
The Commission heard from Ryan Giggs evidence that Evra was angry after Suarez had
fouled him earlier in the game -
But the Commission concluded that "it was improbable that Evra would want to get Suarez into
trouble". Was that bias or naivety?
The Commission and the Suspension
The FA was the prosecutor of the charge, yet it appointed the Commission members
-
Chairman, Paul Greaney QC, (assisted by an FA lawyer) -
at his last UEFA disciplinary hearing, Brian Jones -
manager Denis Smith. This panel could not be described as "independent". This was FA acting
as Judge, Prosecutor and Jury -
Any punishment for breach of FA Rule E3(1) e.g. "abusive, indecent or insulting words or
behaviour" is doubled under E3(2) if there is any reference to a person's ethnic origin, colour,
race or nationality. The normal 2 game suspension for this offence would therefore be doubled
to 4 games.
The FA set out to make an example of Suarez and Liverpool by demanding a "deterrent'
sentence. In my opinion 4 matches would have served this purpose.
An 8 match suspension was just vindictive.
Why was Evra not charged for his init ial insulting comment to Suarez?
Evra used an opening insult that would be extremely offensive in any country. The Commission
accepted Evra's claim that despite its meaning in Spanish, the words he used were a harmless
exclamation. So we have the hypocrisy of the Commission accepting that Evra's use of a South
American insult was harmless, but finding Suarez guilty for his use of Spanish where there was
independent evidence from language experts that its use could be friendly rather than insulting.
The Liverpool Legal Team and Club Advisors
Reading the report, I got the feeling that the FA prosecutors out-
legal team at every stage. The Suarez arguments throughout the hearing were not put as
forcefully or lucidly as they might have been. And the Club's handling of media before and
after the incident could have been a lot better.
Conclusions
The FA's decision to make this a show trial only serves to heighten racial tensions and
encourage the extremists inside and outside football. Some of the comments from leaders of
the FA's "Kick Out Racism" campaign did not help to lower the temperature. This is not the
way to integrate our communities.
The Commission interpreted the FA Rules in the harshest possible way, then picked its way
through the evidence looking for unimportant things on which to find Suarez's evidence
unreliable while ignoring bigger inconsistencies in Evra's evidence.
Then the sentence of 8 matches was double what could be justified even if he was guilty.
And how did Evra get away without being charged with insulting or abusive behaviour?
10
If the FA spent just a fraction of the time and money it spends on social campaigns in
tackling the more general abuse and insults given to referees by players, and by football crowds to referees, players and each other, the game and society at large might really benefit.
Patrick Morrissey
Whistleblower’s Opinion