Lord Herman Ouseley, the chairman of anti-racism campaigners Kick It Out, has outlined his “deep frustration” at “the paucity of corporate leadership across all aspects of the professional game” in the wake of the Football Association’s decision not to charge Malky Mackay and Iain Moody last week for sending racist, antisemitic, sexist and homophobic messages.
Mackay, the former Cardiff City manager, and Moody, who worked alongside the Scot as head of recruitment, escaped punishment after the FA said its policy in such cases was “not to bring charges in respect of private communications sent with a legitimate expectation of privacy”.
However, in a blog on Kick It Out’s website posted on Tuesday, Ouseley wrote that the case was the perfect example of the FA’s inability to communicate its decisions.
“Exactly a year ago, before the start of the last football season, I drew attention to the paucity of corporate leadership across all aspects of the professional game to accept personal and professional responsibility for tackling persistent discrimination, inequality and exclusion,” he wrote.
“Did they listen or care? Whenever a major incident occurs, the FA inevitably is expected to sort it out and cops whatever criticism flows if the outcome fails to match some expectations. To some extent, as the governing body, that’s to be expected. But the reality is that, repeatedly, all the other bodies in football, such as the leagues, the clubs, the Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA) and the League Managers Association (LMA) and others shy away from making decisions, which are theirs, as employers and as integrity standard bearers, relying instead on the FA to bail them out.
“The Malky Mackay and Iain Moody cases provide an illustration of the dilemma facing the FA, which it must resolve urgently, if it is to bring coherence and corporate responsibility in all aspects of governance and regulation. The issue is no longer about Mackay and Moody but where do we go from here? On Thursday 16 July 2015 after some 11 months of investigation by the FA into their private exchange of racist, sexist, antisemitic and homophobic messages, which were made public in a national newspaper, they decided not to bring any charges against either individual because ‘the communications were sent with a legitimate expectation of privacy’.
“But, was there any realistic hope of any charge ever being made because the FA, when confronted with a similar situation of private communications becoming public, involving the Premier League a couple of years ago, made it clear that they could do nothing about it as it was a matter for the Premier League. So, what was the point of the FA investigations this time? The FA was not the employer so, surely, its stance of “nothing to do with us” would apply. Most people, understanding the FA’s stance, naturally assumed that nothing would come of its investigation into Mackay and Moody, so why waste 11 months to tell us what we already knew?
“Surely the FA could have put that fact out in the open back in August/September, and investigate independently whatever complaints it may have had from other interested parties, while spending the rest of the time revising its regulations and processes, involving the leadership of football across the board to resolve how to deal with the issue of private communications when it becomes public and have the potential to adversely affect policies, practices and the integrity of the game.
Ouseley added: “Part of the problem the FA must face up to is that once they embark on an investigation, it goes into silent mode and rarely communicates to keep public interest informed of progress. The lack of information feeds rumours, diminishes confidence in the system to deliver a fair outcome and reinforces the notion that the FA protects the status quo. If it does not sort this out, it will go on being the butt of criticism in investigations, such as this one, where much thorough investigation took place.
“What is so astonishing is the confirmation from the FA that we have a legitimate expectation of privacy in how we express ourselves and our views, however biased, bigoted and prejudicial of others as long as we do so in ways which are private. So where does that leave the policies of equality, diversity and inclusion? We (myself included) all have varying degrees of prejudices, although most people, I believe, are careful to treat people fairly and in a non-discriminatory way, at least in public settings, whatever their views and feelings. However, according to the FA, what goes on in private is sacrosanct and should remain so, even when such private information gets into the public domain.
“So, you can practise openly your prejudices and bigoted attitudes in those areas that are private, between people with whom you might have a legitimate expectation of privacy. This includes the board room, the dressing room and the training ground, which are all treated as private exclusive no-go areas in the world of football and have a legitimate expectation of privacy. Unless, and until, those who observe it, or are the victims of such treatment and brave enough to report it to a club or the FA to investigate it and prove it, such abuses in an exclusive closed culture will continue to thrive unchallenged.
“The bottom line is this: if those who run football want to make equality, diversity and inclusion happen, they could! So, why is it not happening? Don’t answer that: JUST DO IT!”
.jpg?w=600)
