FA’S pursuit of Mourinho sounds senseless
Money used to investigate colloquial Portuguese could be far better spent
Jose Mourinho’s rap sheet is long and unsavoury. From poking a finger in the eye of Tito Vilanova, Pep Guardiola’s former assistant at Barcelona, after a tempestuous Spanish Super Cup final with Real Madrid in 2011 to an expletive-strewn tirade at referee Jonathan Moss as Chelsea manager four years later, his list of indiscretions is well documented. A Uefa official once even branded him an “enemy of football”.
It is why sympathy is invariably, and understandably, in short supply when the Manchester United manager trots out the line about there being one rule for him and another for the rest.
Yet, in trying to establish some actual merit to the latest disciplinary case involving Mourinho, it is hard to escape the feeling that the Portuguese’s reputation, for once, preceded him, and that the whole thing was a colossal waste of everyone’s time and money, both of which could and should have been invested in much more meaningful ways.
If you missed it, Mourinho was charged by the Football Association with using abusive, insulting or improper language after reputedly swearing into a television camera in Portuguese at the end of United’s dramatic 3-2 win over Newcastle last month.
So convened a process in which both United and the FA went to considerable expense and effort to employ colloquial Portuguese language experts in an effort to decipher whether Mourinho might have offended anyone.
If you have not read the complex, 12-page written verdict of the independent regulatory commission that sat to hear the case, best spare your brain the examination. James Joyce’s Ulysses is easier to digest.
In short, it concluded that the expert evidence of the FA’S lip reader was contradictory and failed to provide adequate context to Mourinho’s remarks and that, ultimately, the United manager mouthed the equivalent of “f--yeah” or “hell yeah” in inaudible terms to no one in particular.
Oh, and that, had someone been able to interpret what he was saying, which the commission considered “highly debatable”, there was little to suggest an objective person would have felt insulted or offended. None of which, of course, was enough to prevent the FA announcing that it would appeal against the decision, meaning a case that has confounded many will rumble on for a while yet and could still result in Mourinho being banned from the touchline.
For all the criticism the FA, led by chief executive Martin Glenn and chairman Greg Clarke, receives, its determination to address bad behaviour at matches should not be sniffed at, and it certainly demonstrates a willingness to investigate where other bodies, sometimes presented with much more serious matters, do not.
However, surely there has to be a degree of quality control in terms of the disciplinary matters the FA does raise? The association may be the game’s morale arbiters, but equally as a not-for-profit organisation with a financial crisis at grass-roots level to address, it must think hard about which cases it does and does not pursue.
The FA would not disclose the external costs involved in the Mourinho case, and the money to cover a lip reader’s services, an independent commission which is paid by the judicial services from FA cash, and now an appeal may be back-pocket change to a top-flight footballer, but there are hundreds of local clubs across the country whose shambolic facilities and pitches could have been transformed by the thousands of pounds frittered away on such a frivolous case. At that level in particular every penny counts – just ask those desperately fundraising for a 4G pitch or new changing rooms.
United, equally, would have much preferred to put the money they spent on a linguistics expert to help fight a baffling charge into their own academy or foundation.
A quick glance at the FA’S website shows that, in September alone, the governing body oversaw 61 disciplinary cases. Its regulatory team is not exactly short of things to do. Disciplinary action against Mourinho, in this instance, should never have seen the light of day, and the subsequent appeal merely compounds the initial mistake.