IX Summary
452. The length of these Reasons reflects the complexity of this case, the detailed arguments that have been put before us, and the entitlement of those involved to know why we reached the decision that we did.
453. It may be helpful if we summarise our Reasons, which we do as follows:
(1) Whether a player has used abusive or insulting words or behaviour is a matter for us to decide as a Regulatory Commission, having regard to all the
circumstances of the case. These circumstances include the fact that many players playing in England come from overseas, with a different language and culture. However, we apply the standards that we consider appropriate to games played in England under the FA Rules. Whether the words or behaviour are abusive or insulting is an objective matter; it does not depend on whether the alleged offender intended his words to be abusive or insulting (paragraphs 50 to 73 above).
(2) The burden of proof in this case is on the FA. The standard of proof is the flexible civil standard of the balance of probability. The more serious the allegation, taking into account the nature of the misconduct alleged and the content of the case, the greater the burden of evidence required to prove the matter. The FA accepted that the allegation against Mr Suarez was serious, as do we (paragraphs 74 to 80 above).
(3) We received expert evidence as to the use of the word "negro" in Uruguay and other areas of Latin America. It is often used as a noun to address people, whether family, friends or passers-by, and is widely seen as inoffensive. However, its use can also be offensive. It depends on the context. It is inoffensive when its use implies a sense of rapport or the attempt to create such rapport. However, if it were used, for example, with a sneer, then it might carry negative connotations. The Spanish language experts told us that if Mr Suarez said the things that Mr Evra alleged, they would be considered racially offensive in Uruguay and other regions of Latin America (paragraphs 162 to 202 above).
(4) Mr Evra was a credible witness. He gave his evidence in a calm, composed and clear way. It was, for the most part, consistent, although both he and Mr Suarez were understandably unable to remember every detail of the exchanges between them (paragraphs 229 to 234 above).
(5) Mr Suarez's evidence was unreliable in relation to matters of critical importance. It was, in part, inconsistent with the contemporaneous evidence, especially the video footage. For example, Mr Suarez said that he pinched Mr Evra's skin in an attempt to defuse the situation. He also said that his use of the word "negro" to address Mr Evra was conciliatory and friendly. We rejected that evidence. To describe his own behaviour in that way was unsustainable and simply incredible given that the players were engaged in an acrimonious argument. That this was put forward by Mr Suarez was surprising and seriously undermined the reliability of his evidence on other matters (paragraphs 235 to 267 above). There were also inconsistencies between his accounts given at different times as to what happened (paragraphs 282 to 318).
(6) It was argued for Mr Suarez that Mr Evra invented the allegations to exact vengeance for Mr Suarez's refusal to apologise for the foul on Mr Evra; that he did so knowing that the allegations were false and that the complaint, if upheld, would be damaging to a fellow professional, who Mr Evra did not think was a racist. We rejected this argument as implausible and inconsistent with our assessment of Mr Evra as a witness. No alternative explanation was suggested to us as to why Mr Evra would make the allegations if untrue (paragraphs 323 to 337).
(7) Mr Suarez fouled Mr Evra in the 58th minute of the game. In the 63rd minute, Mr Evra challenged Mr Suarez about the foul. Mr Evra used an offensive phrase, which did not have any racial element and which Mr Suarez did not hear. An acrimonious argument ensued in which both players had a go at each other. In the course of this confrontation, Mr Suarez used the words "negro" or "negros" seven times. He did so both before and after the referee had spoken to them and told them to calm down. Mr Suarez addressed Mr Evra as "negro". He also made other derogatory comments using the word. In the course of the argument, Mr Suarez also pinched Mr Evra's skin (which was not in itself insulting behaviour nor did it refer to Mr Evra's colour) and put his hand on the back of his head, which were part of Mr Suarez's attempts to wind up Mr Evra (paragraphs 346 to 384 above).
(8) Mr Suarez's comments were made in the heat of the moment in response to being confronted by Mr Evra about the foul. He did not use the word "negro" in a way that could reasonably be translated as "nigger". He used the word “negro” because Mr Evra is black (paragraphs 383, 274 above).
(9) Mr Suarez's words, which included a reference to Mr Evra's colour, were insulting. The use of insulting words which include a reference to another person's colour on a football pitch are wholly unacceptable (paragraphs 385 to 399 above).
(10) Had Mr Suarez been sent off for using insulting words (not including reference to a person's colour), he would have received an automatic two-match suspension. The guidance in the FA Rules suggested that our starting-point should be to double that sanction, ie a four-match suspension. However, we were entitled to increase or reduce the penalty further. We took account of various aggravating and mitigating factors. As for the aggravating factors, Mr Suarez used the word "negro" or "negros" seven times, in the course of an acrimonious argument, and went beyond simply addressing Mr Evra as "negro". Mr Suarez knew or ought to have known that these words were unacceptable, particularly in view of the FA-supported campaigns against all forms of racism in football. The words were targeted directly at Mr Evra, as part of Mr Suarez's attempts to wind him up. As for the mitigating factors, Mr Suarez had a clean record in relations to charges of this type. Mr Evra started the confrontation in the goalmouth, in response to which Mr Suarez used the insulting words. Mr Suarez is likely to suffer personal embarrassment as a result of his behaviour coming to light through this decision. He has in the past supported, and continues to support, a charitable project in South Africa designed to promote multi-racial football. He is likely to have learned a lesson through the experience of these proceedings, and said that he would not use the word "negro" on a football pitch in England in the future (paragraphs 401 to 440 above).
(11) Balancing all these factors, we imposed an eight-match ban, a £40,000 fine and gave Mr Suarez a warning as to his future conduct. We considered this to be an appropriate and proportionate penalty in all the circumstances (paragraphs 441 to 446 above).
