So the next time an England player plays for Spanish club and wrote something in english that they translated as racist in spanish he'll get a 3 match ban?
Cavani gets 3 match ban from FA for his social media post
- Thread starter VP89
- Start date
What are the regulations regarding this type of thing in Spain? I suspect they aren't as stringent given everything we've heard to date.
To the surprise of no one common sense not used by the FA.
If I were him I’d be really pissed off at this nonsense.
We have numerous posters - on this site - stating that calling your friend, boyfriend, girlfriend, wife, husband...whatever "negrito" or "negrita" does NOT refer to "race" per default.
It can refer to skin colour (or tone, shade, whatever). It can also refer to hair colour or eye colour. And sometimes it doesn't make much sense at all - it's just...something.
And it certainly is NOT used exclusively to refer to people of a different skin colour than the person using the term (which is the salient point, surely).
It does have that meaning on an other continent, it applies to the Negrito which is an ethnic group in Asia.
Edit: And the thing that bothers me is the lack of common sense, it's as if the FA can't use their brains and warn him.
Yes - and that term is considered problematic. For good reasons. To formally designate a group of human beings as "little black people" is - yeah, what can you say?
But it would be utterly absurd to associate Cavani's use of the term "negrito" with that business - right?
Because the idiom, in its contemporary usage, in Spanish, simply doesn't refer to either "little" or "black" people in the literal sense.
It is problematic and I suspect that it's where some have taken that definition. As for rest it seems that people consider that context is irrelevant.
What I don't get is why the FA does not ask a competent authority in South America or Spain to provide an official statement about how they perceive what Cavani did, instead of trying to understand a language they do not speak. I don't think anything else makes sense.
All this and/or stuff makes me dizzy. I'm sure the FA is the only organisation to use it so profusely.
Agree, I thought it had just gone away, it's taken so long. That's the F.A for you they love giving UTD a rough ride. Ask Rio .
So when can this ban start then,would say we could do with getting it out of the way before Anfield but guess that won't be happening
Embarassing by the FA. Yet another reason to be falling out of love with football.
That's the corollary of pushing the PC agenda and i don't think this is going to change anytime soon.
That's the corollary of pushing the PC agenda and i don't think this is going to change anytime soon.
He is charged on two counts E3.1 and E3.2
“It is alleged that, contrary to FA Rule E3.1, a comment posted on the Manchester United FC player's Instagram page was insulting and/or abusive and/or improper and/or brought the game into disrepute.
“It is further alleged that the comment constitutes an 'Aggravated Breach', which is defined in FA Rule E3.2, as it included a reference, whether express or implied, to colour and/or race and/or ethnic origin.
“It is further alleged that the comment constitutes an 'Aggravated Breach', which is defined in FA Rule E3.2, as it included a reference, whether express or implied, to colour and/or race and/or ethnic origin.
E3.1 fair enough, I can see you can call it misconduct and bringing the game into disrepute (malice or not, rightly or wrongly, it clearly has).
E3.2 is the issue as that's where it becomes an aggravated breach if you specifically establish it as a reference to someone's colour, race, etc (which whatever you think of the word it is not, as the guy is white).
The difference is E3.1 could just be a fine while aggravated breaches carry a minimum 6 (six, not 1 nor 3) game suspension.
So far we've dealt with it well. Next we have to appeal accepting 3.1 and rejecting 3.2, or at the very least obtaining their agreement that the minimum 6 doesn't apply due to the first mitigating factor listed below.
FA HANDBOOK PENALTY GUIDELINES
Sanction Range
A finding of an Aggravated Breach against a Player, Manager or Technical Area Occupant will attract an immediate suspension of between 6 Matches and 12 Matches (“Sanction Range”).
A Regulatory Commission shall take all aggravating and mitigating factors into account, including but not limited to those listed in these guidelines when determining the level of sanction within the Sanction Range.
The lowest end of the Sanction Range (i.e. 6 Matches) shall operate as a standard minimum punishment (the “Standard Minimum”).
A Regulatory Commission may impose an immediate suspension in excess of 12 Matches in circumstances where aggravating factors of significant number or weight are present.
Exceptions to the Standard Minimum
A Regulatory Commission may only consider imposing a suspension below the Standard Minimum where the following specific (and exhaustive) circumstances arise such that the Regulatory Commission determines that the Standard Minimum would be excessive: Where the offence was committed in writing only or via the use of any communication device and:
• Where the Regulatory Commission is satisfied that there was no genuine intent on the part of the Participant Charged to be discriminatory or offensive in any way and could not reasonably have known that any such offence would be caused; or
• The age of the Participant at time of the offence (e.g. where the Participant was a minor at the time the offence was committed); or
• The age of the offence (e.g. a social media post made a considerable time ago).
For the avoidance of doubt, the existence of the circumstances above will not necessarily result in a departure from the Standard Minimum. A Regulatory Commission must be satisfied that the unique circumstances and facts of a particular case are of such significance that a departure from the Standard Minimum is justified to avoid an unjust outcome for the Participant Charged. In reaching a decision, the Regulatory Commission must also consider whether or not it is in the best interests of the game in tackling all forms of discrimination to depart from the Standard Minimum. In any event, a Regulatory Commission shall impose a suspension of no less than 3 Matches.
A finding of an Aggravated Breach against a Player, Manager or Technical Area Occupant will attract an immediate suspension of between 6 Matches and 12 Matches (“Sanction Range”).
A Regulatory Commission shall take all aggravating and mitigating factors into account, including but not limited to those listed in these guidelines when determining the level of sanction within the Sanction Range.
The lowest end of the Sanction Range (i.e. 6 Matches) shall operate as a standard minimum punishment (the “Standard Minimum”).
A Regulatory Commission may impose an immediate suspension in excess of 12 Matches in circumstances where aggravating factors of significant number or weight are present.
Exceptions to the Standard Minimum
A Regulatory Commission may only consider imposing a suspension below the Standard Minimum where the following specific (and exhaustive) circumstances arise such that the Regulatory Commission determines that the Standard Minimum would be excessive: Where the offence was committed in writing only or via the use of any communication device and:
• Where the Regulatory Commission is satisfied that there was no genuine intent on the part of the Participant Charged to be discriminatory or offensive in any way and could not reasonably have known that any such offence would be caused; or
• The age of the Participant at time of the offence (e.g. where the Participant was a minor at the time the offence was committed); or
• The age of the offence (e.g. a social media post made a considerable time ago).
For the avoidance of doubt, the existence of the circumstances above will not necessarily result in a departure from the Standard Minimum. A Regulatory Commission must be satisfied that the unique circumstances and facts of a particular case are of such significance that a departure from the Standard Minimum is justified to avoid an unjust outcome for the Participant Charged. In reaching a decision, the Regulatory Commission must also consider whether or not it is in the best interests of the game in tackling all forms of discrimination to depart from the Standard Minimum. In any event, a Regulatory Commission shall impose a suspension of no less than 3 Matches.
Last edited:
Didn't think the stupidity level of FA could reach this low.
What's the point of arguing about something that was addressed in the part of my post you omitted? Don't be weird.
He’ll be banned for Liverpool game no doubt
Yeah and will be massive miss because gives us such a different dimension to our other forwards
The age of being offended by everything and things you don't understand. Nice
Through this ruling, the FA has quite clearly showed their utter ignorance on what cultural inclusivity actually means - i.e. understanding the cultural context underlining different expressions of speech regardless of where they used. Cavani posted it online so you could argue that it was a global platform.
The FA are making a mockery of the hard work that has gone into combatting racism, which is not simply about doing what is politically correct, but ensuring equitable treatment/coverage and rational understanding of ALL voices across cultures.
The FA are making a mockery of the hard work that has gone into combatting racism, which is not simply about doing what is politically correct, but ensuring equitable treatment/coverage and rational understanding of ALL voices across cultures.
I'm not shocked at all about this 
The only racism going on here is Cavani being judged for using his native tongue in a friendly manner. The FA should be ashamed of themselves.
Any competent authority in South America wouldn't even understand what the issue is supposed to be in the first place.
You have pitch invasions, mass player brawls, people getting shot outside stadiums... and the English FA is going to enquire what their thoughts are on Cavani posting "thanks mate :thumbsup:" on Instagram? Nutters.
He fecked up. He'll be gently punished. It's not a big deal.
3 match ban is not a big deal?
Is that what he's got? I hadn't heard. No, I don't think that's a big deal.
To me this decision is racist, xenophobic or at least inappropriate against Latin Americans.
I think they are saying that we have until Jan 4th to respond. Should we respond earlier and accept the ban, we can start it at the moment of the response.
If not, it gets enforced on Jan 4th.
If we appeal, not sure what the timeline is.
Ahh, I see! Thanks.
Unbelievable that this is going to end in a long ban while Jordan Henderson openly says that referees are bending offside lines to manufacture offsides and the FA’s like “oh well then”
The Danish professor at the Department of Culture and Society, Andreas Beck Holm, has filed a complaint to FA due to FAs cultural racism towards Cavani.
Pasting in the full complaint here. I'm 100 % behind this. FA can't stand on a pedestal, telling the world that our culture is better than yours, and your sayings and customs are in fact racism. Did FA use google translate in this case?
Pasting in the full complaint here. I'm 100 % behind this. FA can't stand on a pedestal, telling the world that our culture is better than yours, and your sayings and customs are in fact racism. Did FA use google translate in this case?
Would anyone have the balls to report them for a hate incident?
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/l...crime/what-are-hate-incidents-and-hate-crime/
It would be a stretch of course, and I don't really advocate it, just being a bit mischievous. Mind you, I have seen cases in the media where people were reported for such that I thought was daft.
Malicious complaints is one of the criteria, could say that Cavani was being maliciously targeted due to his ethnic/cultural/language differences or being an immigrant if we take that professor's line. The police would probably be duty bound to investigate it.
Last edited:
He did not Fcuk up. Stop trolling.
Ah yes, it'll probably be a gentle punishment when he's been charged of an aggravated breach of a rule which in non-aggravated cases leads to a minimum 3 game ban.
Yep I agree with the jist of his point. He veers into silly political territory at some point but it's an indefensible case of cultural elitism.
The FA is run by a bunch of pillocks.
I love you, Professor Andreas Beck Holm. Thanks for having the eloquence and standing that I lack. He may just advance our case better than any of United's lawyers. Put this out there and shout it loudly. I don't know if he's a United fan, but if Cavani escapes a ban (like he rightly should), the good professor should get a box seat at the first game back with fans!
If he said nothing wrong principally how can it be construed as bringing game into disrepute?
The crux of the issue is his ig post. He'll either not guilty of racist remakrs or he's guilty as racist remarks even if it's up to debate.
A craven, cowardly decision by the FA that misses the point entirely. It is racial animus that we must oppose. Edinson was clearly not guilty of expressing racial animus.
If Cavani is still recovering from the muscle injury why not eat the ban now and get it over with, while we have a run of more winnable games before January descends upon us?
If Cavani is still recovering from the muscle injury why not eat the ban now and get it over with, while we have a run of more winnable games before January descends upon us?