This time it is not so easy to defend the guy. It is not a witch-hunt, it is nothing to do with his choice of body art, where he shops or what he eats for breakfast and, if you happen to think Raheem Sterling is treated differently in parts of the media because of the colour of his skin, that does not change the fact he has genuinely messed up.
At the same time there is no need to go overboard when Sterling, to give him his due, is hardly known for these late shows and Gareth Southgate has accepted it was a one-off – a disciplinary matter but still, ultimately, a one-off. Lessons learned, knuckles rapped and, according to the England manager, time to move on, no real damage done.
The bottom line, however, is there is a world of difference between turning up late for England duty – necessitating an apology from Sterling in front of the entire squad – and the other stories that have ignited the recent debate about why he, of all Southgate’s players, appears to hold so much fascination for some of the more paparazzi-driven newspapers.
Southgate’s response when he was asked about Sterling’s new tattoo of a rifle on his right leg was to defend the player and make it clear it was not an attempt to glamorise gangs or guns. The Football Association had already released a statement praising Sterling for the “honest and heartfelt account” in which the Manchester City player said the tattoo was unfinished and had a deeper meaning because his father was killed by a gun. Sterling has not been short of backing when, to many people, it has started to feel suspiciously as if there was something sinister about some of the coverage and, specifically, that it had become a campaign.
That debate should not just be dismissed because Sterling could not manage to get to St George’s Park, as arranged, on Tuesday, turning up the following day instead and finding out in the process that Southgate, contrary to what some people believe, does have a temper. But the player has not done himself any favours and, if he was hoping for a period out of the limelight, it was probably not the wisest move to fly to Jamaica on holiday and then go awol when the rest of Southgate’s players were already preparing for Saturday’s game against Nigeria.
As indiscretions go, this is not a man caught stealing flowers from his local cemetery but, in football terms, it does amount to a clear breach of discipline – one that would incense any top-level manager. As such, Sterling should be grateful Southgate has been so understanding. Was Sterling still in contention to play against Nigeria? “Absolutely,” the England manager replied. Yet not every manager would be so obliging and there are plenty of examples of players who have been left out as punishments for similar incidents.
David Beckham turned up late at Manchester United once and, when he was asked to explain himself, he blamed it on his son, Brooklyn, being unwell. Sir Alex Ferguson decided that “wasn’t being fair to his team-mates” and he was dropped from the following game at Leeds. Beckham’s explanation did not wash: Ferguson recalled in one of his autobiographies that his player did not have “a satisfactory reason for being absent”.
More recently Phil Foden, one of Sterling’s team-mates at Manchester City, and Jaden Sancho, of Borussia Dortmund, turned up late for a training session with England’s Under-19s before a game against Latvia. The manager, Paul Simpson, dropped them both.
In Sterling’s case there are also aggravating circumstances, as far as Southgate is concerned, because he had already given the player an extra day off, with the rest of the squad reporting for duty last Monday. Sterling asked for extra time because he had a family problem during a week-long break for England’s players. He had a few days in Ibiza before flying back to deal with that matter. He then went to Jamaica on another holiday and the problem, according to the FA, was that he could not get a direct flight home. A connection was arranged via Miami and, for some reason, he did not make it.
Southgate duly received an apologetic phone call on Tuesday night in which Sterling explained he would not be reporting for duty as planned. Whichever player it was, it would have warranted admonishment. It just happened to be Sterling: the man who has been in the headlines far more than he would have wanted over the last week.
“I had a discussion with the player,” Southgate said. “We came to an agreement and then he, in fairness to him, wanted to apologise to the group, explained his commitment to the team, and it’s done.” Southgate, despite his reserved image, is not afraid to tell his players when they are out of line. “We went for a walk,” was his way of putting it.
Ultimately, though, he will hope this is a storm that will quickly pass. There was no doubt he was unhappy – “We’d agreed he could have some extra time and he was late after the extra time” – but he also wanted it to be known Sterling was “absolutely” in his plans against Nigeria and, in his position, that was probably smart management, especially this close to a World Cup.
Sterling should be grateful – indebted, even – to his manager’s leniency and that, for Southgate, is not a bad thing if it hardens the player’s resolve to pay him back on the pitch. Dropping him would have turned what should be a one-off incident into something Southgate insisted it never was – a crisis – and risked divisions within the camp.
“I have to say, he’s trained brilliantly all week,” Southgate noted.
