José Mourinho hits out over four-game ban for Eric Dier entering stands
José Mourinho has accused the power-brokers in English football of being clueless and out of touch after Eric Dier was given a four-game Football Association ban.
The Tottenham and England player was found guilty of improper and, more seriously, threatening behaviour by an FA-convened independent panel after he entered the stands to confront an abusive supporter in the wake of his club’s FA Cup penalty shootout defeat at home to Norwich on 4 March. Dier had seen that his younger brother, Patrick, had become embroiled with the fan and said he reacted in order to protect his family member.
Spurs are incensed at the weight of the sanction and Mourinho said: “The problem is not [fans in] the stadiums.” He had earlier advertised his harshest criticism by saying: “Some people with big responsibilities, sometimes doesn’t look like they love football but we love football.”
The point that Mourinho wanted to make concerned the importance of understanding and feeling the game in both the good and bad moments.
“My feeling is that in the majority of the cases football is not protected by the people that is powerful and doesn’t belong to this world,” Mourinho said. “That’s simply my feeling. Powerful people – that doesn’t belong to the tribe. And they don’t have the feelings. They don’t have the know-how and it’s very, very difficult to lead something when you don’t have a clue about the world that you are leading.”
Spurs did not expect the length of the suspension partly because the supporter, according to the FA’s written reasons, had said in a statement given to the police that he was “being an idiot”, was frustrated and annoyed with the result of the match and had not felt threatened by Eric Dier.
There was no physical dimension to the flashpoint, largely because the fan fled the scene. “I think you know my position in relation to what happened – I would prefer to say in relation to what didn’t happen,” said Mourinho, who also revealed that the supporter had apologised in person to Dier.
“It was his own decision to do it because the person in this case, first of all, is a Tottenham fan and was sorry about what happened. The way I was told, he had the dignity to want to apologise to him. It was a nice thing that, in normal circumstances, especially after saying that he never felt under threat at any moment of the situation … I think [that] would be enough for a fair decision.”
The regulatory panel concluded the supporter had felt threatened by Dier and, essentially, they did not believe what he told the police. “When being questioned by police, he had every reason to downplay the incident: a) to protect his own position and/or b) to minimise his own appalling conduct and/or c) to help Dier, through loyalty to the club and/or because he felt responsible for the situation he and that player found themselves in.”
The fan found his behaviour ridiculed in the written reasons. “Abuse hurled from a safe distance is the cowardly equivalent of the offensive tweet cloaked in anonymity. As Dier pointedly observed, he has only ever been abused by spectators from the stands, on social media or from passing cars. This spectator, suddenly confronted by the potential consequences of his shameful actions, marshalled all the courage he could muster; and ran away.”
The supporter was said to have referred to Dier in the basest terms, which sparked the tussle with Dier’s brother. But Mourinho said that the fan would be welcome back at the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium.
“I want fans back very, very much,” Mourinho said. “Even that specific fan, especially because the fan had the opportunity to meet the player, had the opportunity to apologise to the player, had the opportunity to understand that we are very well paid but we are not robots. It was a good opportunity for that fan to turn his profile and become a different fan.”
In the written reasons, it emerged that Gareth Southgate, despite being employed by the FA as England manager, had given an “impressive, unsolicited testimonial” in support of Dier.
The FA’s lawyer submitted that Dier’s conduct behoved a ban of at least five matches and, were it not for the mitigating factors, it would have been at least six. The panel did not agree that Dier had entered the stands to seek out his brother, rather the abusive fan, and they cited a crucial “fork in the road” – captured on video – to make the argument. Dier could have gone one way towards his brother or the other towards the retreating supporter. He chose the latter.
The FA argued that had Dier pursued an opposing player off-the-ball in such fashion for approximately one minute, he would have been sent off and banned for two or three games. They presented a number of additional, aggravating factors.