Cavani gets 3 match ban from FA for his social media post

[Daonico]

It is funny how some people deffend the punishment by saying that, even if Cavani wasn't racist, he offended people. I remember Neville saying something like "if someone is offended, is a problem", yet the ban from the FA is offending a whole continent... I am not talking about a few individuals like the latin americans here... several institutions had voiced they support for the player, including Uruguyan FA, Uruguay player's union, Academy of letters of BOTH Argentina and Uruguay, CONMEBOL (the uefa of South America), the Uruguayan sport secretary (The goverment part that deals with sports)...
so what do we do know? does this offended people doesn't count?

 

[Member 101269]

It is funny how some people deffend the punishment by saying that, even if Cavani wasn't racist, he offended people. I remember Neville saying something like "if someone is offended, is a problem", yet the ban from the FA is offending a whole continent... I am not talking about a few individuals like the latin americans here... several institutions had voiced they support for the player, including Uruguyan FA, Uruguay player's union, Academy of letters of BOTH Argentina and Uruguay, CONMEBOL (the uefa of South America), the Uruguayan sport secretary (The goverment part that deals with sports)...
so what do we do know? does this offended people doesn't count?

I'm aware of that thinking and sensitive / sympathetic to it. The issue is that Cavani signed an agreement to behaviour according to a set of rules. Those rules have precedents in the use of certain language. If Cavani didn't know or wasn't aware of the behaviour he was agreeing to why did he sign? Like i said, i am wholly sympathetic to cultural difference but we have to assume there is a behavioural framework that he agreed to before he could play for united.

The whole episode is embarrassing, particularly for the FA.

 

[PoTMS]

I don't understand why we didn't appeal this. Because we'd look bad? A three game ban is excessive and with all the support from other football federations and groups coming in, surely the FA would bow down.

 

[Abusian]

I'm aware of that thinking and sensitive / sympathetic to it. The issue is that Cavani signed an agreement to behaviour according to a set of rules. Those rules have precedents in the use of certain language. If Cavani didn't know or wasn't aware of the behaviour he was agreeing to why did he sign? Like i said, i am wholly sympathetic to cultural difference but we have to assume there is a behavioural framework that he agreed to before he could play for united.

The whole episode is embarrassing, particularly for the FA.

That being the case one wonders why his punishment was so much more harsh than B Silva’s...

 

[Doracle]

I'm aware of that thinking and sensitive / sympathetic to it. The issue is that Cavani signed an agreement to behaviour according to a set of rules. Those rules have precedents in the use of certain language. If Cavani didn't know or wasn't aware of the behaviour he was agreeing to why did he sign? Like i said, i am wholly sympathetic to cultural difference but we have to assume there is a behavioural framework that he agreed to before he could play for united.

The whole episode is embarrassing, particularly for the FA.

The rules he signed up to say he can’t be insulting, offensive, improper or bring the game into disrepute. When he said effectively (from what we are informed of Uruguayan language usage) “thanks mate” do you think he thought he was doing any of those things?

 

[RedDevilzFox]

So England should become like countries that throw people after buildings, right?

Haha .. amazing that that's the conclusion you came to from my post. Takes quite a mental stretch ... bravo!

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

I don't understand why we didn't appeal this. Because we'd look bad? A three game ban is excessive and with all the support from other football federations and groups coming in, surely the FA would bow down.

Because the FA has a history of increasing the punishment when United appeal?

 

[The Firestarter]

Yup

"After Suarez was banned for it "negrito" became an automatic ban"
"He wasn't banned for negrito"
"Eh what I meant was *Shakespeare novel*".

Just admit you got it wrong man

 

[Daonico]

I'm aware of that thinking and sensitive / sympathetic to it. The issue is that Cavani signed an agreement to behaviour according to a set of rules. Those rules have precedents in the use of certain language. If Cavani didn't know or wasn't aware of the behaviour he was agreeing to why did he sign? Like i said, i am wholly sympathetic to cultural difference but we have to assume there is a behavioural framework that he agreed to before he could play for united.

The whole episode is embarrassing, particularly for the FA.

I obviously don't know the details of what he signed... but the supposedly broken rules that were being said around... well, I don't think he actually brokes them...
He didn't insult anyone, he wasn't being racist (most people accept this at least), he didn't bring direpute to the game (the FA was probably in fault for this one), and he wasn't refering to someone by the colour of his skin (his frind is white, the word is not used exclusevely for black or even "darker" people).

 

[SuperiorXI]

I don't understand why we didn't appeal this. Because we'd look bad? A three game ban is excessive and with all the support from other football federations and groups coming in, surely the FA would bow down.

Probably damage limitation. The higher ups will likely have looked at it and weighed it up and decided it's not worth appealing... they'll be aware of all the ignorance in the world and wouldn't want to be in any way associated with racism (even wrongly).

Don't forget MUFC is a massive global brand and they'll do all they can to avoid damaging their image.

 

[RedDevil@84]

I don't understand why we didn't appeal this. Because we'd look bad? A three game ban is excessive and with all the support from other football federations and groups coming in, surely the FA would bow down.

Bad PR.
English media will be brutal. They would claim we are undermining the Kick It Out campaign and claim that we taking our knee is nonsense etc. Also it is FA. They will just make it 4 game ban rather than accept they screwed it up.

 

[Icemav]

I think you are splitting hairs. The level of punishment and the logic are linked.

The punishment shows what conclusion they came too and so also gives away some of their thought process.

I disagree that it is clear. Though going by what you say we can assume that the FA concluded it was language that can have a racial connotation and can be used negatively in certain contexts, yet Cavani did not use with ill nor racial intent. Hence why he didn't get an long ban. If they deemed him to have done something bad and intentionally then it would have been much longer than 3 matches.

What is clear is that the FA now has a zero tolerance of anything that can be construed as racist in English football and is not worried about handing our bans to new foreign players who are unaware of this. So it is harsh and this ban has the aspect of deterrent about it but you can be pretty sure agents and clubs will be briefing foreign players quite carefully from now on.

Is this culturally insensitive? The issue of systemic racism is complicated and the FA erring on the side of caution seems fair enough to me. All over the world things are said or done in a seemingly non-malicious way that may be deemed by an individual from another culture to be insensitive or offensive, or worse. In the country I live there are a couple of things I can think of off hand which are down right racist in a UK context, and quite frankly it is racism even if it is perhaps construed in jovial or acceptable way by the local culture. The UK is the UK and people who live there have to adapt to the rules of the government, federations and business owners, not to mention the prevailing attitudes and norms of broader society.

 

[Marcosdeto]

I disagree that it is clear. Though going by what you say we can assume that the FA concluded it was language that can have a racial connotation and can be used negatively in certain contexts, yet Cavani did not use with ill nor racial intent. Hence why he didn't get an long ban. If they deemed him to have done something bad and intentionally then it would have been much longer than 3 matches.

What is clear is that the FA now has a zero tolerance of anything that can be construed as racist in English football and is not worried about handing our bans to new foreign players who are unaware of this. So it is harsh and this ban has the aspect of deterrent about it but you can be pretty sure agents and clubs will be briefing foreign players quite carefully from now on.

Is this culturally insensitive? The issue of systemic racism is complicated and the FA erring on the side of caution seems fair enough to me. All over the world things are said or done in a seemingly non-malicious way that may be deemed by an individual from another culture to be insensitive or offensive, or worse. In the country I live there are a couple of things I can think of off hand which are down right racist in a UK context, and quite frankly it is racism even if it is perhaps construed in jovial or acceptable way by the local culture. The UK is the UK and people who live there have to adapt to the rules of the government, federations and business owners, not to mention the prevailing attitudes and norms of broader society.

So you have no problem with the fact that you may be punished for something that is not wrong nor forbidden?

 

[André Dominguez]

Negrito or negrita is not even perjorative. A little search on youtube will get you hundreds of songs named Negrita or Negrito.

 

[2 man midfield]

FA should just admit they jumped the gun on this and overturn the ban, but it won’t happen.

 

[Icemav]

So you have no problem with the fact that you may be punished for something that is not wrong nor forbidden?

It seems to be forbidden by the FA and that's all that matters. They deemed the word to have some sort of Racial connotation or at least be construed as having one. Whether its wrong/forbidden or not in Ecuador to use Negrito as a term in the future is something for them to decide. It may always be fine, it may not be.

 

[Marcosdeto]

It seems to be forbidden by the FA and that's all that matters. They deemed the word to have some sort of Racial connotation or at least be construed as having one. Whether its wrong/forbidden or not in Ecuador to use Negrito as a term in the future is something for them to decide. It may always be fine, it may not be.

Ecuador? Really?
and if you read the rule aplied you will see that Cavani’s conduct isn’t described there

 

[RossoRotRojoRouge]

It seems to be forbidden by the FA and that's all that matters. They deemed the word to have some sort of Racial connotation or at least be construed as having one. Whether its wrong/forbidden or not in Ecuador to use Negrito as a term in the future is something for them to decide. It may always be fine, it may not be.

With all due respect, Icemav, it certainly is not a case of "that's all that matters". We live in a democratic society in which rulings, punishments, opinions can be challenged, and the FA in this case needs to be held accountable and its clearly erroneous ruling challenged. It should and does matter to many millions of people.

In your previous post, you wrote "What is clear is that the FA now has a zero tolerance of anything that can be construed as racist in English football" -- Construed by whom? Anyone? Even if they don't understand the language in question? Construed by ONE language-expert witness? We can't question on what authority they arrive at such a conclusion? Are they to hire language experts to examine the use of languages other than English in the friendly exchanges between the hundreds of foreign Premier League and Championship players and their families and friends? Where do you draw the line? Foreign words that appear similar orthographically to certain English words, homonyms? Are we allowed to report only on their Twitter exchanges or can we report on suspiciously sounding foreign words which we hear over the fence while they're having a large garden party attended by hundreds of people? Where does it end?

It is laughable that Cavani is being forced to attend a 2-hour face-to-face meeting to educate him, on what exactly? Is that 'educator' fluent in Spanish language and Latin culture? Those in the FA who have made this judgement should arguably themselves need to attend a similar meeting for some multicultural training. Rather than Cavani, it is they who have brought the game into disrepute. In any court of law, the FA lawyers would be laughed out of court. Their failure to comprehend their degree of cultural and linguistic ignorance is astonishing.

The reasons that Cavani and the club have not sought to challenge the verdict are obvious in the current climate. It is for others to do so, as is happening.

 

[Stacks]

He was banned because you cannot refer to somebody by colour in FA rules and Negrito "can" refer to a person's colour, even if friendly manner. In their case, the context and accurate interpretation does not matter to them as they want to ban the word Negrito period, so that those who might decide to use Negrito for a black person (even friendly) knows not to do so as Cavani has already been punished for using this word. Do I agree? Nope but I understand what they are thinking. Problem is the word Negro also used to describe people as well as black objects and is a general part of Spanish vocabulary for 600 million people so they (FA) may have to make a concession going forwards

 

[Anustart89]

I'm aware of that thinking and sensitive / sympathetic to it. The issue is that Cavani signed an agreement to behaviour according to a set of rules. Those rules have precedents in the use of certain language. If Cavani didn't know or wasn't aware of the behaviour he was agreeing to why did he sign? Like i said, i am wholly sympathetic to cultural difference but we have to assume there is a behavioural framework that he agreed to before he could play for united.

The whole episode is embarrassing, particularly for the FA.

If there was a banned word list that Cavani was handed when he signed which he then went on to ignore, then yes, he's in the wrong. But do you think that's what transpired?

Cavani 'agreed' to not "bring the game into disrepute", so you'd have to think that the bar for "bringing the game into disrepute" would be higher than using an affectionate term, referencing the colour black to a white person in another language.

Having watched PFA poster boy Jordan Henderson say that referees bend the lines for offside decisions to make Liverpool players appear offside with that not being a case of "bringing the game into disrepute", you'd have to wonder if affectionate communication with a friend really is making the game of football look bad? I mean, the FA looks worse now that they've managed to offend the entirety of Latin America.

It's a muddily worded rule, so if there's not a banned word list then they can feck off if they're going to act on the assumption that someone might have been offended, since there's 7 billion people in the world who can all be offended by anything or nothing.

Should the FA be banned for three games because Uruguayans were offended by their ruling? Surely what's transpired since Cavani's ban has brought shame on the English more than what Cavani did, if that's the law they're going to reference?

 

[pablo__p]

Because the FA has a history of increasing the punishment when United appeal?

I get it but damn, does it mean we are never going to appeal anything anymore?

Also, I believe a bit of tribalism would help cementing the group...

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

I get it but damn, does it mean we are never going to appeal anything anymore?

We can get by those three matches without him so it's sensible to just accept the ruling and make the statement we did.

Also, I believe a bit of tribalism would help cementing the group...

We can do that without getting Cavani an additional game ban.

 

[GameOn]

And almost without trying you have shown your true colours.

Enlighten me.

The one and only party being utterly ignorant and borderline racist themselves here is the FA.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

I replied to that here.

With regards to that last bit in negritas (yes, I'll make a point of using the Spanish term for bold font from now on) it's absolutely right. I can call my mate "gordo" (fatty), "ñato" (big nose), "mono" (monkey) or "negro" (black). It would make no sense to use such terms to randomly address strangers and yes, it would be offensive in that case.

Even if not a randomer but an "acquaintance", you sort of have to earn the right to use such nicknames, it's a sign of being close to that person. In fact you can test what someone thinks of you in terms of closeness by calling them by their nickname for the first time. Very often the reaction gets you straight back to first name basis

Look at you embedding links?!

Thanks, couldn't find previous post. Useful to see explanation again.

Do you hear anything about the Uruguayan FA and players recent comments? Does it feel like a supportive (but token) gesture or something that they'll take further?

Hope someone does. Still feel context was important (and seemingly ignored by FA) and the wording of the charge OTT.

 

[Member 101269]

If there was a banned word list that Cavani was handed when he signed which he then went on to ignore, then yes, he's in the wrong. But do you think that's what transpired?

Cavani 'agreed' to not "bring the game into disrepute", so you'd have to think that the bar for "bringing the game into disrepute" would be higher than using an affectionate term, referencing the colour black to a white person in another language.

Having watched PFA poster boy Jordan Henderson say that referees bend the lines for offside decisions to make Liverpool players appear offside with that not being a case of "bringing the game into disrepute", you'd have to wonder if affectionate communication with a friend really is making the game of football look bad? I mean, the FA looks worse now that they've managed to offend the entirety of Latin America.

It's a muddily worded rule, so if there's not a banned word list then they can feck off if they're going to act on the assumption that someone might have been offended, since there's 7 billion people in the world who can all be offended by anything or nothing.

Should the FA be banned for three games because Uruguayans were offended by their ruling? Surely what's transpired since Cavani's ban has brought shame on the English more than what Cavani did, if that's the law they're going to reference?

You seem to imply that he didn't know what bring the game into dispute means. Do you think he wasn't aware of the LS issues?

 

[Brightonian]

We didn't appeal it because in the long run even if we were right to do so and even if we were proven right and the punishment was overturned, we'd have caused ourselves more trouble and distraction by fighting than by just accepting it. In the course of a whole season, three games off is a negligible disruption.

Cavani will be fresh as a daisy for Liverpool. If the cup matches count towards the ban then by my calculations that means we can even play him in the Burnley game first to get him match-sharp. So let other people make the (very reasonable) arguments against the punishment, while we focus on the football.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

It seems to be forbidden by the FA and that's all that matters. They deemed the word to have some sort of Racial connotation or at least be construed as having one. Whether its wrong/forbidden or not in Ecuador to use Negrito as a term in the future is something for them to decide. It may always be fine, it may not be.

Ecuador??

If he'd broken a rule (even ignoring context), I would reluctantly mutter under my breath and move on BUT the wording of the charges applied haven't been broken.

Also, from a footballing point of view, I can understand United thinking they'll get past a ban. From a personal perspective, if it was me, I'd never accept that charge... stays with you for life and there will always be people who go "oh yeah, Cavani. That guy who scored goals and said something racist"

 

[Marcosdeto]

With all due respect, Icemav, it certainly is not a case of "that's all that matters". We live in a democratic society in which rulings, punishments, opinions can be challenged, and the FA in this case needs to be held accountable and its clearly erroneous ruling challenged. It should and does matter to many millions of people.

In your previous post, you wrote "What is clear is that the FA now has a zero tolerance of anything that can be construed as racist in English football" -- Construed by whom? Anyone? Even if they don't understand the language in question? Construed by ONE language-expert witness? We can't question on what authority they arrive at such a conclusion? Are they to hire language experts to examine the use of languages other than English in the friendly exchanges between the hundreds of foreign Premier League and Championship players and their families and friends? Where do you draw the line? Foreign words that appear similar orthographically to certain English words, homonyms? Are we allowed to report only on their Twitter exchanges or can we report on suspiciously sounding foreign words which we hear over the fence while they're having a large garden party attended by hundreds of people? Where does it end?

It is laughable that Cavani is being forced to attend a 2-hour face-to-face meeting to educate him, on what exactly? Is that 'educator' fluent in Spanish language and Latin culture? Those in the FA who have made this judgement should arguably themselves need to attend a similar meeting for some multicultural training. Rather than Cavani, it is they who have brought the game into disrepute. In any court of law, the FA lawyers would be laughed out of court. Their failure to comprehend their degree of cultural and linguistic ignorance is astonishing.

The reasons that Cavani and the club have not sought to challenge the verdict are obvious in the current climate. It is for others to do so, as is happening.

Excellent post!

Mate, you need to post more. You should be promoted to the mains but with only two posts it will be hard to be noticed by the scouts and admins.

 

[antohan]

I don't understand why we didn't appeal this. Because we'd look bad? A three game ban is excessive and with all the support from other football federations and groups coming in, surely the FA would bow down.

We didn't appeal it because we found three games in a row we could live with and don't want to risk 4, 5 or 6.

Manchester United is not in the business of educating the FA or the world on what is or isn't racist, let alone when mounting a title challenge.

The club have absolutely done the right thing, dealing with it well and moving on.

I'm still awaiting the FAs reply to our press release. Are they or are they not going to confirm Cavani is not racist and what he did cannot be construed as racist? Keep waiting. If they agree there are no grounds for a ban (it's not an aggravated breach) and if they don't they confirm they need their heads checked.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Excellent post!

Mate, you need to post more. You should be promoted to the mains but with only two posts it will be hard to be noticed by the scouts and admins.

Let him get a few more posts in before that.

 

[90 + 5min]

Did Cavani pass the test he was sentenced to do? Did he get some diploma from TheFA? Curious to see what it look like.

I wonder also if he had a real teacher or did some random person from TheFA headquarters took the role as a "teacher"?

Let it make it more wierd, how can he go on face to face education when Boris Johnson and government have made all those rules. With school and with meeting other people?

If somebody got Covid-19 from the meeting, are TheFA to blame?

 

[antohan]

Look at you embedding links?!

Thanks, couldn't find previous post. Useful to see explanation again.

Do you hear anything about the Uruguayan FA and players recent comments? Does it feel like a supportive (but token) gesture or something that they'll take further?

Hope someone does. Still feel context was important (and seemingly ignored by FA) and the wording of the charge OTT.

Doubt they will take it much further as the ban will be over soon enough. I guess it's in Conmebol's hands more so than the Uruguayan FA and their next steps would be entirely about football politics more than racism.

Tbh, I'd rather it just went away.

 

[antohan]

You seem to imply that he didn't know what bring the game into dispute means. Do you think he wasn't aware of the LS issues?

For the umpteenth time:

1) Suarez never said negrito

2) Suarez was trying to upset a rival (black) player during a game

3) Nobody in Uruguay (inc. Cavani) doubted Suarez had said some very nasty things to Paddy. Nobody thought it was Suarez actually being racist but resorting to racial slurs much like Materazzi successfully upset Zidane referring to his sister (or mum?). We largely see both incidents "at the same level" while you don't, which is absolutely fine and reasonable.

4) The only real debate revolved around the notion that "what happens on the pitch stays on the pitch". Something that over here we hold as a cardinal rule (and yes, many thought Evra was a bit of a snowflake bringing that up), while the FA (within their rights, and quite rightly in their context) wouldn't condone it.

Overall, the Suarez case had a lot more nuance in terms of differing sensibilities, but there was never any doubt or question that the FA were fully entitled to act according to their own. They did, and they were right.

The Cavani case is not even a case to begin with. They are banning someone for thanking a mate using a word that does not exist in the English language, making up a meaning for it, and stating it was an aggravated breach as it referred to the black skin colour of a white man. It's a shambles.

 

[Member 101269]

For the umpteenth time:

1) Suarez never said negrito
2) Suarez was trying to upset a rival (black) player during a game
3) Nobody in Uruguay (inc. Cavani) doubted Suarez had said some very nasty things to Paddy. Nobody thought it was Suarez actually being racist but resorting to racial slurs much like Materazzi successfully upset Zidane referring to his sister (or mum?). We largely see both incidents "at the same level" while you don't, which is absolutely fine and reasonable.
4) The only real debate revolved around the notion that "what happens on the pitch stays on the pitch". Something that over here we hold as a cardinal rule (and yes, many thought Evra was a bit of a snowflake bringing that up), while the FA (within their rights, and quite rightly in their context) wouldn't condone it.
Overall, the Suarez case had a lot more nuance in terms of differing sensibilities, but there was never any doubt or question that the FA were fully entitled to act according to their own. They did, and they were right.
The Cavani case is not even a case to begin with. They are banning someone for thanking a mate using a word that does not exist in the English language, making up a meaning for it, and stating it was an aggravated breach as it referred to the black skin colour of a white man. It's a shambles.

Sigh; i'll repeat "Do you think he wasn't aware of the LS issues?"

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Sigh; i'll repeat "Do you think he wasn't aware of the LS issues?"

We all know he was well aware that Suarez called Patrice Evra a negro yes.

Your fecking point?

 

[Member 101269]

We all know he was well aware that Suarez called Patrice Evra a negro yes.

Your fecking point?

Add in the media storm, how fans and LFC behaved etc etc. Does anyone really believe he knew nothing? I can believe it probably was not in the forefront of his mind because of the length of time.

 

[antohan]

Sigh; i'll repeat "Do you think he wasn't aware of the LS issues?"

Yes, he was aware Suarez racially abused a black player during a game and got banned for it.

It's not exactly a precedent that makes alarm bells ring when writing "thanks mate" to a white friend on Instagram.

 

[VidaRed]

The FA contributed to our loss today.

 

[Member 101269]

Yes, he was aware Suarez racially abused a black player during a game and got banned for it.

It's not exactly a precedent that makes alarm bells ring when writing "thanks mate" to a white friend on Instagram.

The he knew that racism isn't about his view of his language it is about the view of those offended. He agreed to those rules..

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, i'm just saying it's not so simple as saying lets use his view of the world.

 

[Doracle]

The he knew that racism isn't about his view of his language it is about the view of those offended. He agreed to those rules..

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, i'm just saying it's not so simple as saying lets use his view of the world.

You clearly don’t know anything about the Suarez decision. I suggest you read it as what you are saying currently is woefully inaccurate.