Rodrigo Bentancur’s sanctions have been made official. This morning, the Football Association officially banned the Tottenham Hotspur midfielder seven matches and fined him £100k for a racist comment directed at Son Heung-Min and the East Asian community on a YouTube video this past June.
The committee determined that Bentancur’s comments were in breach of the FA’s rule E3.1 and E3.2:
E3.1 A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the gameand shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or any combination of, violent conduct,serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.
E3.2 A breach of Rule E3.1 is an “Aggravated Breach” where it includes a reference whether express or implied, to any one or more ofthe following: ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, religion or belief, gender, gender assignment, sexual orientation or disability.
Details about the sanctions were leaked last week and have proved to be accurate, though the inclusion of the fine is new information.
Bentancur appeared in a YouTube video with Uruguayan football journalist Rafa Cotello in which he made a disparaging remark about Son Heung-Min, his teammate and Tottenham club captain, and about how all Koreans “look more or less the same.”
In the written rationale of the decision, provided by the FA on their website, the association appeal board charged with investigating the incident noted that Bentancur’s comments did not reflect an egregious violation of Rule E3.2 (i.e. stated with “clear hostile, racist intent,” but did meet the minimum standards of the violation as stated in the rulebook. In effect, Bentancur did not sufficiently prove that he was not aware that his comment might be offensive, but his comments were subjectively deemed to be “objectively insulting and/or abusive,” but not overtly “hostile.”
Bentancur’s defense hinged on an earlier reference by Cotelo in the video to Son in general terms as “the Korean,” and implied that Bentancur’s comments were a sarcastic response to that “regrettable” comment, a light-hearted mocking of Cotelo using a racial generalization about his friend and teammate. In this context, it was argued, Bentancur’s comments were a “gentle rebuke” of Cotelo’s generalization. Bentancur’s team also noted that none of the press reaction in the wake of the video mentioned Cotelo’s comments, which, it was argued, omitted this necessary context, and that Bentancur, who had no editorial control over the video, was “shocked” that Cotelo decided not to omit the exchange.
The appeals board rejected this argument in their decision.
38. Even on the basis of the Player’s evidence and submissions, we consider the Player’s conduct in using the words he did, in the full context in which they were used, was clearly abusive and insulting, and would amount to misconduct. The Player appears to accept that by saying, “Sonny? Or one of Sonny’s cousins as they all look more or less the same”, he meant to refer to a generalised characterisation of the nationality and/or race and/or ethnic origin of Heung-Min Son, albeit with best of intentions. But, even if the Player intended those words to be a “sarcastic and gentle rebuke” to Mr Cotelo for referring to Heung-Min Son as “the Korean” as he did, to respond in those terms would be objectively regarded as insulting and/or abusive and highly offensive. We agree with The FA’s submission: it would clearly be universally regarded as such (paragraph 22 of its Written Submissions).
39. In coming to that conclusion, we have considered primarily the ordinary and usualmeaning of the words themselves and their immediate context, including the manner in which they were delivered (in the context of the interview as whole, as reflected in the film). Just by reference to those criteria, we consider that the Player’s remarks were clearly objectively insulting and abusive.
The appeals board also considered Bentancur’s immediate reaction to the controversy, issuing initially what was considered a half-hearted apology, and referring to his comments as “a very bad joke.” The panel seemed to indicate that this was tacit admission that Bentancur knew his comments were offensive both to Son and to Koreans whose racial identity was generalized. The panel also rejected Bentancur’s assertion that the comments were made in private with a “reasonable expectation” of privacy, considering he knew he was being filmed for a YouTube video by Cotelo.
That said, the FA’s sanctions of seven matches falls very close to the “standard minimum” for breaches of E3.1 and E3.2, suggesting the panel did not feel Bentancur’s comments were egregious or delivered with hostile, racist intent. Also mentioned were “mitigating factors” — it was Bentancur’s first offense, it was not premeditated, recognition that the video in question was not posted by Bentancur or any member of his circle, and he did voluntarily display genuine remorse for his actions. It does suggest that the FA is now at least attempting to take violations of these policies more seriously than it has in the past.
Bentancur’s suspension will be in effect for all Premier League and domestic cup matches, but does not apply to UEFA competitions, meaning he will be eligible to play in Europa League matches. This would include the matches at Manchester City, vs. Fulham, at Bournemouth, vs. Chelsea, at Southampton, vs. Liverpool, and the Carabao Cup quarterfinal vs. Manchester United, but he would be eligible to play in Europa Cup matches vs. AS Roma and at Rangers. Bentancur should return in time for Tottenham’s Boxing Day match at Nottingham Forest.
