Racism - Mod Note on 1st Post - Read before posting.

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

Why isn't Suarez charged like John Terry? Is it only because no one complained to the cops as was the case with JT?

Aggravating factors

430. We then considered the factors that supported a greater penalty than the entry point of a four-match suspension ("aggravating factors").

431. The first aggravating factor was the number of times Mr Suarez used the word "negro" or
"negros". The entry point of a four-match suspension could apply in a case where the
alleged offender had used insulting words including a reference to colour once only
during a match. We have found that Mr Suarez used the word "negro" or "negros" seven
times in his exchanges with Mr Evra. It happened, also, in a number of phases. First, there
were the exchanges in the goalmouth. Secondly, there was the exchange just before the
referee spoke to the players. Thirdly, there was the exchange just after the referee had
spoken to the players. Whilst we recognised that the exchanges occurred over only a two minute spell in the second half of the match, there were multiple uses of the insulting words by Mr Suarez.

432. The second aggravating factor was what Mr Suarez said when using the insulting words.

He did not simply use the word "negro" to address Mr Evra. He did that, but he also said
that he had kicked Mr Evra because he was black, and that he did not talk to blacks. Even if Mr Suarez said these things in the heat of the moment without really meaning them, nevertheless this was more than just calling Mr Evra "negro". According to the Spanish language experts, the uses would have been regarded as racially offensive in Uruguay.

433. The third aggravating factor was the context in which Mr Suarez used the insulting words. The context was of an acrimonious exchange, which included Mr Suarez pinching Mr Evra's skin and putting his hand on the back of his head, both of which we found were an attempt by Mr Suarez to wind up Mr Evra. Although we have found that the pinching itself was not insulting behaviour nor did it refer to Mr Evra's colour, such physical contact as part of a confrontation in which the insulting words were used served to aggravate the misconduct.

434. The fourth aggravating factor was the fact that the FA has promoted campaigns to root out all forms of unacceptable behaviour related to a person's ethnic origin, colour or race in football, such as the "Kick It Out" campaign. Mr Suarez knew or ought to have known that his behaviour was contrary to the message of those campaigns and unacceptable.

435. The fifth aggravating factor was that the insulting words were targeted by Mr Suarez at one particular black player, Mr Evra, who Mr Suarez intended should hear the words. It was not a case of a comment or comments directed at no-one in particular. Rather the words were directed at Mr Evra in the context of an argument in which Mr Suarez was attempting to wind up Mr Evra. We accept that Mr Evra was angry and upset during the remainder of the game and at the end of it as a result of Mr Suarez using the insulting words.

Mitigating factors

436. We also considered the mitigating factors. The first mitigating factor was that Mr Suarez had a clean record in relation to charges of this type.

437. The second mitigating factor was that Mr Evra started the confrontation in the goalmouth and Mr Suarez reacted to it. It is important to point out that Mr Evra's conduct in starting the confrontation was in response to being fouled, which involved being kicked on a knee which had caused him trouble in the past. Mr Evra did not touch Mr Suarez and, whilst he used an offensive phrase which Mr Suarez did not hear, Mr Evra did not use any words which referred to Mr Suarez's ethnic origin, colour, race or nationality. Nevertheless, he was the initiator of the confrontation at this moment.

438. The third mitigating factor concerns Mr Suarez's personal situation in terms of his family, friends and those who look up to him, especially in Uruguay. We recognise that his
behaviour during the match is likely to become widely known as a result of our decision
with the consequent embarrassment and personal difficulty for him.

439. The fourth mitigating factor is Mr Suarez's charitable work, especially through the South Africa football project. We recognise that Mr Suarez has made a valuable contribution through that project, although a player who does so should be especially careful not to undermine the principle underlying such a project by his own behaviour on a football pitch.

440. The fifth mitigating factor is that we believe that Mr Suarez has learned a lesson through the experience of these proceedings. He told us that he would not use the word "negro" on a football pitch in England in the future and it would be highly surprising if he did so.

Conclusions on penalty

441. The use by a footballer of insulting words, which include reference to another player's colour, is wholly unacceptable. It is wrong in principle. It is also wrong because
footballers, such as Mr Suarez, are looked up to and admired by a great many football
fans, especially young fans. If professional footballers use racially insulting language on a
football pitch, this is likely to have a corrosive effect on young football fans, some of
whom are the professional footballers of the future. It also has a potentially damaging
effect on the wider football community and society generally. Every professional
footballer should be able to play competitive football in the knowledge that references to
the colour of his skin will not be tolerated. The same goes for all levels of football. Those
who are victims of misconduct of this nature should know that, if they complain and their
complaint is upheld, the FA will impose an appropriate penalty which reflects the gravity
of this type of misconduct.

442. There is no tariff set down for penalty in such cases. There is the guidance in Rule E3(2) to which we have referred. Having heard the evidence over several days and made our detailed findings, we have weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors against each other. Having done so, in our judgment an appropriate and proportionate penalty is an eight-match suspension, a fine of £40,000 and a warning as to future conduct.

443. As for the length of the suspension, we concluded that a four-match ban, which was the entry point under Rule E3(2), would be too low and would not reflect the gravity of the misconduct. Mr Suarez's behaviour was far more serious than a single use of the word "negro" to address Mr Evra in a way which would be considered inoffensive in Uruguay.

If that was all that Mr Suarez had done, and we had found the Charge proved, the penalty would have been less than we have imposed.

444. Ultimately, this is not a matter of mathematical calculation, but a matter for the exercise of our discretion in the light of all the circumstances. We considered a lower suspension; we considered a greater suspension. We concluded that an eight-match suspension was appropriate and proportionate, reflecting the seriousness of the misconduct, balanced against the mitigation that was urged on us.

445. We also fined Mr Suarez £40,000. In doing so, we took account of the information that was
placed before us about his weekly salary. We considered this to be appropriate and
proportionate in the light of Mr Suarez's misconduct.

446. We also warned Mr Suarez as to his future conduct. This is customary where misconduct
charges are upheld, although we did not impose it simply as a matter of course. We
considered it appropriate and proportionate to warn him not to repeat this misconduct.