Do footballers need to stop swearing?
Hunt and Carlisle call for change
16 July ~ In light of the testimonies given at John Terry's trial last week, there have been calls to clamp down on the abuse and insults players hurl at each other and referees. Jeremy Hunt, the Culture, Media and Sport Secretary, and PFA Chairman Clarke Carlisle have both expressed their desire to clean up this aspect of the game and have urged the FA and referees to enforce stricter punishments on those found guilty of foul and abusive language. Both Anton Ferdinand and Terry shocked the court when confirming the details of their argument.
Carlisle believes the FA should "adopt a line of social responsibility" by enforcing the respect campaign "to the nth degree". He will be discussing the issue on BBC3 tonight. Carlisle's view seems to be echoed by Law 12 of the FIFA regulations, which states that using foul and abusive language or gestures on the field is an offence worthy of a caution or even dismissal. This law and the Respect campaign seems to remain largely ignored by officials.
Wayne Rooney became the first victim of the rule when he was retrospectively banned for two matches by the FA last April. Rooney was heard swearing into a TV camera after he scoring a hat-trick against West Ham United, but the FA have failed to act consistently.
There is no denying that the language Rooney used has become a major part of the game. Hunt claims swearing on the pitch has "gone too far". He said: "I would like to see the football authorities do more because I think we just have to recognise that football has huge influence on thousands and thousands of young people and we do need footballers to set an example."
Carlisle believes these laws should be strongly implemented ahead of the season, so the League's reputation will not be tarnished. "If players were being sent off and banned because of the language they are using then it would cause them to address their behaviour and it would cause the clubs to come down on it too."
Those against producing cards for foul language have raised fears that matches could be ruined by multiple dismissals. The counter-argument is that setting a strict example ought to deter players from what has become a distasteful status quo. Others point out that abusive language emanates from the stands and people are rarely ejected for it.
Chelsea goalkeeper Petr Cech has dismissed calls to clamp down on the language used in football. "Football always has been and always will be the same. You have a lot of adrenaline, a lot of joy, a lot of frustration. It's always been the same in every sport. You can't really take this away from the game." Strong feelings are stirred up during football matches but the same can be said about a courtroom, a classroom or a hospital, workplaces where this type of language would be punished.
The ideal solution would be to clamp down on foul language without jeopardising the match itself. Perhaps a retrospective panel that fines violators might be a more efficient deterrent. Ultimately, it is a decision the FA needs to contemplate ahead of the new season if football is to avoid the scrutiny and criticism it has received as a result of last week's trial. Max Bentley
There's a quick solution to this for referees - through the RA they decide to take the appropriate action as stated in the rules against players continuously until it stops. If that means 30 games get abandoned for the first 10 weeks of the season, so be it. Clubs and players will soon clean up their act. It's so easy but it will never happen. Refs could use the media to outline their stance and what was said by who in respective matches. They'd have to continue the hardline stance but that's the only it will be stamped out combined with taking the rugby approach of only the captain approaching the ref unless invited to do so.
Agree with your points ingoldale, however football will never have the culture of respecting the referee and opposition that other sports do.
You rarely, in fact more or less never see athletes in the NFL, NBA or in Rugby flat out abuse a referee. Lobby them? Yes. Remonstrate? From time to time, but if they go overboard there are penalties imposed which act as a sufficient deterrent such as technical fouls, ejections, loss of 10 yards etc. These all serve to uphold the authority of the referee and ensure some level of decorum amongst the participating athletes.
Unfortunately there just doesn't seem to be the will to really tackle the culture of dissent and disrespect prevalent in the game.
I think Cech misses the point. I'm sure most people who follow the game accept (or at least deem non-punishable) footballers uttering curses as a result of frustration at a bad tackle, missed sitter, etc. But that clearly isn't the same as the relentless bellowing of obscenities at one another, the TV cameras, the crowd - and, in particular, the officials.
More often than not in the Premier League, players seem to get away with shouting 'f*** off' to referees and assistants. How and why is this? In years gone by, swearing at a referee was a straight red: if the men in charge are confident enough to dish out punishments for often very contentious decisions then why do we not see more sendings-off for the kind of bad language that can only be interpreted as dissent, abuse or even, in some cases, threatening behaviour?
Stringent implementation of this would - as Clark Carlisle seems to concur - see it decrease dramatically.
I've seen players shout f*** off when they disagree with a decision but they are a distance from the referee / assistants. I'd count that as more general swearing, along the lines of a response to a missed tackle, scuffed shot etc. But where do you draw the line on this? Is it one thing to swear in frustration and a different thing to swear at someone? How do you decide? What if someone mutters 'oh for f***'s sake' under their breath while you're talking to them?
It will still be quite subjective.
From my point of view, swearing is not the main issue here. Whether we like it or not, swearing in public has become more prevalent and more acceptable. People swear in the steeets, on trains and buses, in shops and pubs, on TV - everywhere. Except in church, maybe. Not yet anyway.
So why shouldn't people swear on football pitches? Like it or not, swearing is all part of the game. Not a particularly nice part of the game I'll grant you, but maybe its an inevitable consequence of the times we live in, the sort of game football is, the sort of people who play it - and indeed, the sort of people who watch it. It's not just the players is it? What about us lot on the terraces? Can we the fans demand that the players stop swearing, while we continue chanting some pretty fruity stuff at them? Maybe we need to put our own house in order first....
There's a chicken-and-egg argument to be had, about whether football reflects society or society reflects football, but that's for wiser people than me to comment on. I'll take some convincing that kids will stop swearing in the playground if footballers stop swearing on the pitch. I'm resigned to the fact that, basically, English speakers swear a lot more in public these days. I've got over that one. I'm no longer appalled by the sound of people swearing in public. I'm virtually immune to it now. In fact, I have been known to join in, on occasion... ;-)
However, I do struggle to understand the levels of contempt and hate that many footballers seem to harbour against their colleagues and opponents. I'm quite aware of the fact that there's a lot at stake, and it is not just a game, and occasionally one player might fall out with another, but when professional footballers are lining up to tell us that firing tirades of abuse at each other is the norm - "all part of the game", as they put it - well that can't be right can it?
"There's a quick solution to this for referees - through the RA they decide to take the appropriate action as stated in the rules against players continuously until it stops. If that means 30 games get abandoned for the first 10 weeks of the season, so be it. Clubs and players will soon clean up their act. It's so easy but it will never happen. Refs could use the media to outline their stance and what was said by who in respective matches. They'd have to continue the hardline stance but that's the only it will be stamped out combined with taking the rugby approach of only the captain approaching the ref unless invited to do so."
Quick solution? Shit solution more like.
Conversely, you could just stop trying to criminalize mouth-noises. Seriously, it's making you look a bit silly.
I think it's a big problem in non-league where you can really hear everything which is said on the pitch.
It's a big problem for anyone taking their kids along to games.
With respect, I think parents have much more important things to worry about.
Baseball has a glorious tradition of players and managers arguing with the umpires and getting ejected from the game or "run" or "tossed" for their trouble. It's like Kabuki. Everyone plays their part. Of course, the implications of getting tossed in baseball aren't as serious as they are in football.
At all levels of the game footballers, when the match is in progress, are often in a kind of trance in which occasionally they utter expletives without even being aware of it. If they were thinking all the time about what might come out of their mouths next, they would not be able to concentrate on playing.
Occasionally, though, swearing is deliberate, provocative, personal and malicious, and if it is recognised as such by the officials, it should be punished.
Discuss this article
You must be logged in to comment. Please register if you don't have an account yet.
