Menu

A different perspective on the Suarez affair: Racism is not a dangerous tackle

The Luis Suarez 8-game punishment is a very bad one. Assuming the matter was proven.

Punishing racist slants is very important. It cannot be dismissed as what Americans call “trash talk” or as “cultural sensitivity”. A black player is entitled to a fair and reasonable environment at his work place. Even if his work place is an emotionally charged football stadium.

Racist slant is worse than most forms of abuse. Because history shows us that racism in the football stadiums is epidemic. If you don’t stop it today – the problem is 10-fold worse tomorrow.

So Suarez should be punished severely.

For example:

Two weeks wages, the maximum under current rules, and one should even consider legislation for more severe punishment in such cases.

Or a few dozen hours of community work in minority communities. Maybe even every week to the end of the season.

Maybe he should be simply punished in a general court. On grounds of hate speech.

*

But a social and moral stand, as important as it is, should not be a serious factor in the outcome of football tournaments.

Racism is not an illegal substance or a two legged tackle. It is way worse. Punishing it with sporting implications actually sends the wrong message and diminishes it’s importance. In the sporting context it should probably be equivalent to any red card.

A one game suspension, £300,000 fine and community work, would be way more appropriate.

Author: Ronen Dorfan

More Stories Luis Suarez Patrice Evra

4 responses to “A different perspective on the Suarez affair: Racism is not a dangerous tackle”

  1. Scot says:

    I do not condone racism. However, I’d like to point out the history of England in world-wide imperialism, slavery, racism and with the blackest record in the past 300 years including accepting terms like “darkee” while outlawing terms like “nigger”. If a black player called Rooney a “Horrible white imperialist bastard”, would he get an 8 match ban? NO ! EPL is a joke. Can’t support it’s own teams with native English players so must deal with importing players from all over the world and covers its own black English history of racial abuse by appearing to be “better than the rest of the world” handing out 8 match bans.

    • Imran says:

      Scot, you are a joke. The difference between “negro” and “horrible white imperialist bastard” is so significant that an entire essay would not be able to explain it to you. The fact remains that because of the implications of colonial rule (in the UK) and slavery (in the US), special measures are needed to ensure that the descendants of those who were wronged are never wronged in the same way again: hence the terms majority groups and minority groups. Moreover, “horrible white imperialist bastard” is not a racial slur. The only offensive word in that sentence is “bastard”. The word “negro” has a historical significance because it was used by plantation owners to address slaves, so when you use it today, you invoke the actions and words of a time when slavery was accepted. But what the hell, I’m wasting my time with you. Any paragraph that starts with “I do not condone racism but…” is doomed to expose exactly how you do. I don’t think condoning or not condoning racism is any of your business really. Your first priority should be to learn what racism actually is.

  2. Scot says:

    I do not condone racism. However, I’d like to point out the history of England in world-wide imperialism, slavery, racism and with the blackest record in the past 300 years including accepting terms like “darkee” while outlawing terms like “nigger”. If a black player called Rooney a “Horrible white imperialist bastard”, would he get an 8 match ban? NO ! EPL is a joke. Can’t support it’s own teams with native English players so must deal with importing players from all over the world and covers its own black English history of racial abuse by appearing to be “better than the rest of the world” handing out 8 match bans.

    • Imran says:

      Scot, you are a joke. The difference between “negro” and “horrible white imperialist bastard” is so significant that an entire essay would not be able to explain it to you. The fact remains that because of the implications of colonial rule (in the UK) and slavery (in the US), special measures are needed to ensure that the descendants of those who were wronged are never wronged in the same way again: hence the terms majority groups and minority groups. Moreover, “horrible white imperialist bastard” is not a racial slur. The only offensive word in that sentence is “bastard”. The word “negro” has a historical significance because it was used by plantation owners to address slaves, so when you use it today, you invoke the actions and words of a time when slavery was accepted. But what the hell, I’m wasting my time with you. Any paragraph that starts with “I do not condone racism but…” is doomed to expose exactly how you do. I don’t think condoning or not condoning racism is any of your business really. Your first priority should be to learn what racism actually is.