Hey there! Shounak here 👋
Welcome to Issue #9 of Your Weekend Beer - a weekend newsletter that hits your inbox every Sunday. We are a 100+ member community that helps you make sense of the business world of football - with a pint of Beer.
If you are new to your Beer club, you can check out your previous Weekend Beers here.
We are an inclusive community- if you have any inputs or ideas on topics that you want me to write on, feel free to get in touch. I reply to each and every message- in fact, I look forward to hearing from each and every one of you!!
In the meantime, if you’re enjoying this, please share your Weekend Beer with someone who is as big a football nerd like you.
If you’ve been forwarded this email, you can subscribe here:
Friends,
On 26th February 2015, Dutch club, Feyenoord Rotterdam were playing the home leg of their last 32 Europa League fixture against AS Roma with the score at 1-1 at the end of the first leg. Roma eventually went on to progress through to the next round winning the tie 3-2 on aggregate, but the high tension home fixture was not without its controversy.
Around the 30th minute mark, an inflatable banana, about 115 cm in length was thrown onto the pitch during the match. It landed between the stands and the perimeter boards close to AS Roma player Gervinho who was lining up for a throw-in.
The whistle blew and play was suspended by Clement Turpin, the match referee.
The incident was widely covered across several media channels resulting in the commencement of a UEFA disciplinary procedure which ended with a decision given by the UEFA Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body.
On 21st May 2015, the Disciplinary Body held Feyenoord Rotterdam liable for the racist acts of their supporters.
Feyenoord appealed the decision before the UEFA Appeals Body, who confirmed the verdict of the Disciplinary Body and dismissed the club’s appeal. Dissatisfied, Feyenoord brought the case before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on appeal which would give a final verdict on the dispute.
It’s Not What It Looks Like…
Feyenoord argued that the use of inflatable bananas was misrepresented as a racist act, which was used by fans to create a “positive and supporting atmosphere”.
According to Feyenoord, the nature of the inflatable banana was such that it could not have been directed at any particular player but was rather thrown in a general direction out of sheer frustration, for a wrongly awarded throw-in.
Feyenoord contended that Mr. Turpin’s determination of the act amounting to a racist one was based on a subjective assessment since there was nothing in the broadcasted images to imply that the inflatable banana was thrown in the direction of Gervinho.
It was Feyenoord’s plea that due to the seriousness of the alleged offense, the referee ought to have a “high degree of confidence” to impose any liability on the club.
Feyenoord argued that the context in which the alleged act was said to be racist was important to ascertain whether the act indeed amounted to a racist one. The club pleaded that the inflatable banana was a “harmless toy” which had been thrown by a seventeen-year-old “colored boy” at the home ground of the club, which had previously never experienced any act of racism.
According to Feyenoord, the situation had been overreacted upon due to “over-regulation and over-instruction of the issue” caused by the political nature of the problem. A seemingly harmless act by a young boy, was, according to Feyenoord, blown out of proportion.
In any case, it was the contention of Feyenoord that even if they were found guilty, the sanctions imposed upon them by the Disciplinary Body were disproportionate in light of several mitigating factors.
Some of these mitigating factors were:
The throwing of the inflatable banana, even if it was to be considered as a racist act, was much less severe than other racist acts taking place throughout Europe.
There was a lack of clear and cogent evidence on the basis of which Feyenoord was incriminated.
Former African players at Feyenoord had not experienced racism of any kind during their time at the club.
The inflatable banana was, according to Feyenoord, a “symbol to create atmosphere and laughter”.
It’s Going Down
Andrew Mercer, the counsel representing UEFA, submitted that the facts posited a simple conclusion that an inflatable banana was thrown at a “black player” of AS Roma.
He supported his argument by citing numerous media sources who had covered the event independently and further corroborated by official UEFA reports.
Regarding the argument of Feyenoord that the subjective assessment of the referee ought to be based on a high degree of confidence, UEFA argued that the presence or absence of racial intent was immaterial and that under Article 38 of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations(UEFA DR), the referee’s report is presumed to be accurate.
In any case, it was UEFA’s contention that the referee’s report was based on the visual assessment of Mr. Rainville, the assistant referee, who was best placed to observe the unfolding of the incident before his own eyes.
Therefore, Feyenoord had the burden to prove that the inflatable banana was thrown out of general frustration and not towards Gervinho.
UEFA argued that the inflatable banana was not thrown out of general frustration as the throwing of the banana directly followed an action on the pitch performed by Gervinho.
UEFA took recourse to the video footage to show that the crowd was behaving aggressively towards Gervinho, who almost got hit in the head by a paper roll, immediately preceding the banana incident.
The fact that the thrower himself was “colored”, according to UEFA, did not rule out the possibility that his actions could be of a racist nature.
The fact that it was concluded independently by the referees, media reports, as well as by the athlete himself was enough proof to reach at the particular determination that the throwing of the banana amounted to a racist act under the Disciplinary Regulations.
Say No to Racism
The CAS did not agree with Feyenoord’s argument that the determination of the throwing of the inflatable banana was based on an erroneous subjective assessment.
The Court held that the law is clear in the matter that the referee’s report is presumed to be valid unless otherwise disproved. The party questioning the veracity of the report (in this case Feyenoord) has the burden to prove that the report should not be taken into consideration.
According to the Court, this was not the case here. Despite the lack of clear audible communication available between Mr.Turpin and Mr. Rainville, the latter was still best placed to see the exact incident and report it to Mr. Turpin.
This was also further corroborated by the UEFA Europa League Delegate’s report which stated that “an inflatable banana was thrown” onto the pitch, which he believed to be a “racist act”.
The Court did not take into consideration media reports as independent sources but instead based its judgment on the referee’s report. Additionally, the Panel held that the determination of whether the act was racist would ultimately be based on a conclusion reached by an “objective onlooker”.
This objective onlooker could be someone situated in the stands, on the pitch, behind the screen, or anywhere else. If a reasonable onlooker believes that the act was done with intent so as to insult the human dignity, as provided for under Article 14(1) of the UEFA DR, then it can be reasonably concluded that the act must surely be a racist one.
The Court concluded that to do otherwise would mean that some acts which are considered to be reprehensible are somehow permissible just because another group of people thinks that such acts are fine.
The Court therefore partially upheld the decision of the UEFA Appeals Body and directed Feyenoord to pay a 50,000 Euro fine.
The Panel, by reversing the Appeals body decision, allowed Feyenoord to play its next UEFA competition in front of its home crowd for a probationary period of three years. If any further violation of Article 14(1) were to take place during this period, then Feyenoord would have to play behind closed doors.
The CAS in this case took a big step towards combating racism which is rampant throughout the world, not excluding European football.
PS: You can read the full CAS Judgment here.
For Your Eyes Only…
The first-ever penalty shootout at a World Cup in the 1982 semi-final between France and West Germany.
Pele and Garrincha against Mexico circa 1962 World Cup.
We’ve come a long way: A journalist uses a walkie-talkie before the opening game at the 1950 World Cup between Brazil and Mexico.
What Else Are We Reading…
- FIFA Congress approves the change of eligibility rules, meaning players who have played one official match for one country can switch to another.
- The Premier League has agreed to a 1-year broadcasting deal with Tencent just weeks after its previous deal was terminated. The new deal will enable Chinese fans to watch all 372 matches of the EPL season.
- A one-stop guide to every Premier League 2020-21 commercial sponsor and broadcaster.
- FIFA has published a very extensive 198-page guide on Third-Party Ownership and Investment.
- Former Sky Sports MD Barney Francis warns allowing clubs to live-stream matches could threaten traditional broadcast revenue streams.
Strike Of The Day…
Your Weekend Beer took us 30+ hours to brew. Phew!
I am exhausted.
It’s not easy juggling work and maintaining an OC newsletter. If you liked Your Weekend Beer, please go ahead and share a pint with your football buddies.
It’s free and always will be.
Until then…