Antonio Rudiger, black top-class footballer for Chelsea, reported racist abuse during the match versus Tottenham on 22nd December. The abuse concerned was monkey noises coming from the crowd.
Media coverage has been extensive. Instant reactions have been various – the Professional Football Association (PFA) demanding a government enquiry into racism in football; suggestions that referees should stop the game when racism occurs; encouragement that teams should walk off the pitch; the proposition that football clubs should be fined. The PFA are emphatic that it is vital that footballers are protected from racist abuse. However, it is important to remember that non-celebrities suffer daily racist abuse across the globe. The demand to protect footballers is understandable but the footballers themselves need to consider the most effective and resilient response.
As to suggestions to solve the problem, should it not first be recognised that racism is not especially a problem in football and footballers are not a special class? Rather racism exists within society generally and is but one of several serious social problems. The individual racist in the crowd is not being racist because of football. Is it perhaps the case that his monkey sounds tell us only that the individual has a problem for some reason of their own which could be as shallow as an adolescent silliness or as deep as group Nazism? The individual has to be discovered and persuaded to a different view. A Government enquiry is unlikely to be the answer to this problem: the answer may lie more with that individual, their home and community and that is where the responsive action should occur.
The other reactions – stop the game, walk off the pitch, fine the club – these are all punishments of the collective body not the individual to blame. Compare a totalitarian government faced by armed resistance in a town – it decides to punish the whole community to deter the resistance: is that not outrageous?
If there is a burglar living in your street, would it not be bizarre to levy a fine on all the residents until the burglar stops burgling? At the Chelsea versus Tottenham match there were say 60,000 people and the day out cost them £100 each. If the match had been stopped because of bad behaviour, who would have suffered? Certainly, all other innocents in the crowd. By all means fine the club if it is failing to do what it promises, that is to fight racism, but surely not if someone in a crowd shouts abuse. Punishing an organisation means punishing its innocent stakeholders.
Sometimes too an appropriate reaction of players on the pitch might simply be to ignore an abuser – to show they are not worthy of recognition and that their abuse has no effect, other than to reveal their own ignorance. Sometimes less rather than more media coverage might be desirable.
Perhaps the real fight against racism in this case should be taking place within the racist individual’s community as well as their peer group supporters making them unwelcome at sporting events.
An additional observation. The Premier League professional football match is a gladiatorial event where two opposing tribes of supporters compete with each other to deliver the most offensive abuse at the other tribe and team. Shocking insults are publicly exchanged and even incited. It is hardly surprising that some abuse with racist connotations emerges. But why does only that get attention? Racism itself is of course appalling. However, events where the norm is the incitement of hatred of “the other side” and resultant obscene abuse which is not racism, require cultural change and this issue should not be forgotten.
