Graham Kelly: Dangers in Levein's fight for right to criticise referees
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Deal or no deal? The row rumbles on. We left this space last week concluding that it was only a matter of interpretation as to whether one regarded the lawyers' discussions which led up to the outcome of disciplinary cases as "deals".
Arsenal were fined £175,000 by the Football Association for failing to control their players in the latter stages of the 0-0 draw at Old Trafford, with five of the players fined a total of £100,000 and suspended for a combined total of nine matches. This was a reasonably firm punishment, yet the Manchester United manager, Sir Alex Ferguson, suggested that a deal had been done to favour his rivals in that certain charges laid were either dropped or reduced: "I think there was a suspicion that they had done a deal. They've been doing that for years, Arsenal. They're very fortunate that they have that position within the game."
The FA responded to the United manager's comments, which appeared to be premeditated and to be referring to the Arsenal vice-chairman David Dein's position on the board of the FA, by strongly denying the suggestion of any deal and requesting formal explanation of his remarks from him and United. If the Rio Ferdinand case is one trial of strength, this promises to be yet another, and again one where the legal advisers will be working overtime, sadly, even if the FA contented itself with a mere warning to the Arsenal manager, Arsène Wenger, to remember his responsibilities after his attack on Ruud van Nistelrooy, whose attitude, he alleged, constantly provoked.
Meanwhile, a case currently running in Scotland may have implications for freedom of expression south of the border and indeed throughout Europe. The Hearts manager, Craig Levein, won an interim order at the Edinburgh Court of Session in September, when Lord MacFadyen instructed the Scottish Football Association to lift a four-month touchline ban it had imposed on him for non-payment of a fine.
The SFA fined Levein £1,000 after he criticised the referee Dougie McDonald following a 1-0 defeat against Kilmarnock at Rugby Park in May in which the Hearts players Andy Webster and Austin McCann were sent off. Apparently, he said he stopped counting after the 97th mistake. When Levein refused to pay the fine or attend the SFA general purposes committee meeting, the Association twice doubled the amount, then banned him from the dig-out for four months, at which point he called in the lawyers.
Although Lord MacFadyen was satisfied that the SFA had the authority to impose the original fine, he did not think its powers extended to the subsequent actions. He also accepted that the touchline ban gravely prejudiced Levein in the performance of his job. The SFA had argued that, as many managers chose not to occupy the bench, his ability to carry out his duties would not be affected.
Unfortunately, the hearing of the case proper between Levein and the SFA did not commence as scheduled last Wednesday, when the judge at the Court of Session, Lord Brodie, announced that he had acted for the Association in 1996, when Duncan Ferguson, the Everton and former Rangers player, persuaded the court to lift a 12-match ban imposed for violent conduct. Nevertheless, more details of Levein's case emerged.
Levein contends that the original fine was imposed solely on the basis of his remarks in the press, and not via a proper hearing. The SFA says that Levein wrote and promised to moderate his comments about match officials in future and this, therefore, was an admission of the accuracy of the comments attributed to him in the press. The SFA says he should have exercised his proper right of appeal rather than go to law.
The crucial factor for the football authorities is Levein's intention to argue his case in part - when a new date is finally determined - on article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which grants the right of freedom of expression.
Nobody surely would dispute the right to speak freely, but football's rulers have to attempt to inject some semblance of respect for the bigger picture. What makes me sick to the stomach are the constant attacks on referees which gnaw away at the very integrity of the game.
Back to the question of deals, understandings or misunderstandings. Why did the FA demonstrate no interest whatsoever in approaching Wenger for the vacant England coach's job when Kevin Keegan abruptly left? He was already in England, unlike Sven Goran Eriksson.
Why did Ferguson react so ferociously, if he did not believe a deal had been done between the FA and Manchester United, when the disciplinary commission extended Eric Cantona's suspension into the following (1995-96) season? How had he gained the impression that, provided United suspended Cantona until the season's conclusion, that would be the end of the matter?
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments