Paul Vallely: Don't let thugs represent our country

'Sunderland are shite", said the black-and-white scarf above the bar in the Adelphi just half a mile away from Newcastle United's stadium. The drinkers in the pub took little heed. To the Newcastle fans it was a statement of the obvious; to regulars who supported the Weirside team it was the kind of banter they expected in a Magpies pub. But the local magistrates were less amused.

The landlady was this week fined £400 and ordered to destroy the offending garment. The objection was not grammatical, though in any case she might have argued that "Sunderland is shite" risked being construed as an insult to an entire town rather than just its football team, whose Stadium of Light ground is routinely known by an alternative name on the north side of the Tyne.

No, Yvonne Mann, who runs the pub, was convicted under section 5.1 of the 1986 Public Order Act of "displaying a sign which is abusive and insulting and likely to cause alarm or distress". Cases of very serious violence between Sunderland and Newcastle fans in recent times led the chairman of the bench to tell Mrs Mann that she had shown "totally unacceptable and unreasonable conduct".

Yet if this case goes too far in protecting the sensibilities of the public the same cannot be said of the decision by the England manager, Sven Goran Eriksson, to chose Lee Bowyer and Jonathan Woodgate for the national squad. For the past two years the two Leeds players have been blackballed from the England team following their prosecution after the grievous assault on an Asian student outside a Leeds club. Woodgate was convicted of affray, and though Bowyer was found not guilty, what emerged from the case did him little credit. He was branded a liar by the judge and order to pay £1m of the legal costs. Selecting louts like Woodgate and Bowyer for England is little short of a disgrace.

Eriksson & Co anticipated such criticism. An official of the Football Association privately suggested that the pair had "done their time", an unfortunate phrase in the circumstances. (The oafish Woodgate was sentenced to 100 hours of community service). And the England manager announced: "You can't go on punishing people all their lives because they did something. I would not treat my children like that, and it's the same for football players."

But this will not do. Leave aside the possibility of yet more opprobrium as a result of the suit for damages which the victim of the assault, Sarfraz Najeib, is bringing in a civil court, where the burden of proof is less demanding. There is a significant difference between giving offenders a chance to redeem themselves in the eyes of the rest of society and selecting them to represent their country. Of course, they should be given a chance to redeem themselves, though a prerequisite of that is repentance and remorse, which Woodgate may have demonstrated but Bowyer has consistently refused. Playing for your country is still an honour that should be withheld from some people. We do not want to be represented by arrogant thugs such as these two.

It is disturbing that the FA cannot see this, for its blinkered concern for the success of the national team places both the game – and the behaviour of this unattractive pair – outside the normal moral framework that governs all other social acts. Such decisions cannot be left to managers driven by the desire to keep their job or even by fans overwhelmed by the urge to see their team win. To let Bowyer and Woodgate's skill on the field override other considerations reveals the extent to which bankrupt utilitarian ethics riddle our general thinking. As does Alex Ferguson's decision to stick two fingers up to the FA by effectively telling them that they can ban Roy Keane, but it won't make any difference since he's having his hip op anyway.

It is no good our lamenting the increasing tendency to personal violence within our society and then lauding brutish individuals such as Bowyer and Woodgate. Had they been teachers or bank clerks, it is difficult to imagine that their careers and general standing wouldn't have been deleteriously affected by what emerged in court. Our attitude to top footballers – since their celebrity makes them figures the impressionable seek to emulate – ought if anything to be more severe. And though the judge ruled that the assault was not racially motivated there is no denying that a contrary perception is widespread in the Asian community. Fêting this pair sends out all the wrong kinds of messages on race as well as drunken yobbery.

Bowyer and Woodgate ought to have been made to learn that their golden boots do not make them untouchables. And – heresy though it is nowadays to say so – the rest of us need to remember that some things are more important than winning.

p.vallely@independent.co.uk