In a week when former RBS chief executive, Fred Goodwin, was stripped of his Knighthood for boardroom performance (belatedly) deemed unworthy of the honour, the FA has taken decisive action and stripped Chelsea’s John Terry of the England captaincy, after his trial for allegedly racially abusing Anton Ferdinand was adjourned until 9th July.
Often criticised for being a pre-historic organisation devoid of common sense and beset by damaging internal politics, I for one am pleased to see the FA take decisive action on this issue, particulalry in light of the prolonged, drawn out investigation which ultimately found Liverpool’s Luis Suarez guilty of racially abusing Manchester United’s Patrice Evra.
In the same way that Liberal Democrat MP, Chris Hunhe, knew his position as a cabinet minister would be untenable until he’s able to prove his innocence (after this week, being formerly charged with perverting the course of justice over a speeding offence), the FA knew the captain of it’s national football team couldn’t have a charge of racial abuse hanging over his head for five months. Doubly so, with England competing in the European Championship Finals this summer.
Until Terry’s case is heard, it will bring both him and the England team added scrutiny and attention from media, fans and the football world, so the FA was forced to act – whether this move angered Fabio Capello or not. However, the question remains; has the FA gone far enough by only stripping him of the captaincy? Should he be allowed to don the three lions at all?
I hear your cries of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and wholeheartedly agree that an accusation or allegation of abuse doesn’t mean anyone should be premused guilty, until they are tried in the court of law. However, if the rumours are true that several black players from the England squad put pressure on the FA to take a tough stance over Terry, will his prescence in the dressing room be devisive?
And if Lee Bowyer – like John Terry, no stranger to controversy – was blocked from playing for England by the Football Association in 2001 until his court case for racially aggravated assualt was complete, why then is the Chelsea defender free to represent his country whilst he too is accused of a criminal offence?
Only the Football Association know the answer but they must surely hope that a player whose CV includes drunkenly taunting US tourists in the wake of 9/11, giving unauthorised tours of the Chelsea training ground and having an affair with a team-mate’s (and best friend’s) former wife, is able to prove his innocence come July. Otherwise, the FA will have some serious questions to answer.
iheartsport 