Maybe his penchant for theatre finally explains his reffing when we played Leicester away. His decision to not give a foul against Vardy and then a penalty against Rafael is still easily the most clearly biased ten seconds of refereeing I've ever seen.
Flat out admitting here that he didn't want any negative media attention following a result and so made a conscious & selfish decision to prioritise his image over the safety of the players on the pitch. If someone had suffered a career-ender then he would have been squarely to blame.
You have to presume based on this that every non borderline/difficult incorrect decision he's made in any game was down to him having an agenda about how the game should go, rather than being an honest mistake, because this interview has just made that by far the most plausible explanation available.
And from that you have to wonder what the agendas actually were, because "theatre" is a very loose explanation. Clattenburg's definition of what makes good theatre could be anything from not ruining a game to actively wanting to make a particular decision regardless of whether it is correct, or even actively helping a particular team to win or come back into a game.
Basically we now know we have a situation where if a manager or player even mentions a referee in any context before or after a game, they are fined, but the referee is free to officiate the game with any agenda he sees fit, and not only is he allowed to, but no is allowed to suggest that's what he is doing.
If anyone from Chelsea had accused Clattenburg of deliberately not sending off Spurs players, they'd have been hauled in front of the FA and punished for undermining the integrity of the officials, due to this being such a serious thing to accuse a referee of doing...so it HAS to be treated very seriously if the referee actually does do this. If referees have a free reign to show as little fairness or integrity as they like, then it is actually more fair to just not have them at all.