FA's Latest Charge

Suso has been charged 10,000 pounds for calling team-mate Jose Enrique "gay" on a twitter banter.





This is as much as people got charged for Racism by UEFA

Maybe a bit of an overreaction, but I think what they're trying to do is commendable. The kid even realized it himself, immediately taking down the post. Using the word gay as an insult at this point is a PR debacle in western countries, and I think that's actually helping a lot to destigmatize it. Suso knew he messed up, and is being punished as a result.

if he insulted him through it then i get it

if he just called him gay or even maked fun of him then i dont and im against the charge

stevieg8 wrote:Maybe a bit of an overreaction, but I think what they're trying to do is commendable. The kid even realized it himself, immediately taking down the post. Using the word gay as an insult at this point is a PR debacle in western countries, and I think that's actually helping a lot to destigmatize it. Suso knew he messed up, and is being punished as a result.

It's the club's business to deal with those things. He did not insult anyone by calling them gay (like Macheda did with a follower calling him a shit player). He didn't insult FA's employees, but was joking with his best friend at the club and Enrique laughed it up.

What's next. FA charging a player after a player tweets: "I watched Titanic and the ending was a little gay" ?!

Suso tweeted: ‘What f*** is he doing? This guy is gay... he does everything except play football.’

The Reds midfielder quickly realised he had made a poor error of judgement, deleted the tweet and made an apology.

But, after hearing of Suso's punishment, Enrique tweeted: 'Is amazing how fa can fine my friend @suso30fernandez for a banter thing. Was just a joke!!!'

It's a stupid thing to tweet and not even funny, but it's still a bit silly that he gets a fine for that.

Harry Redknapp wrote:

stevieg8 wrote:Maybe a bit of an overreaction, but I think what they're trying to do is commendable. The kid even realized it himself, immediately taking down the post. Using the word gay as an insult at this point is a PR debacle in western countries, and I think that's actually helping a lot to destigmatize it. Suso knew he messed up, and is being punished as a result.

It's the club's business to deal with those things. He did not insult anyone by calling them gay (like Macheda did with a follower calling him a shit player). He didn't insult FA's employees, but was joking with his best friend at the club and Enrique laughed it up.

What's next. FA charging a player after a player tweets: "I watched Titanic and the ending was a little gay" ?!

I feel like the Titanic comment would already be charged, is the point. Not just by the English FA, but in any of the US's major sports too. He DID use the word to insult someone; it was meant in a friendly way, the same way my friends and I would call each other names, but the connotation of the word was still intended to be negative. The goal is to make the word a neutral descriptor, not a negative one; any usage of the word "gay" as an insult - even in friendly banter - undermines that goal when it is done by a public figure. I think 10,000 pounds is a bit excessive to get the point across, but I think the public response to this word in public culture has actually had noticeable effects in the few short years the campaign has been occurring, and I'm really not bothered by the FA taking this action.

For the sake of argument: if Suso had said "This guy is such a lazy African... he does everything except play football," do you think the punishment would be out of line? None of us would be surprised, we'd say "wow Suso what a dumb thing to say in public in this day and age," and we'd move on.

Art Morte wrote:

Suso tweeted: ‘What f*** is he doing? This guy is gay... he does everything except play football.’

The Reds midfielder quickly realised he had made a poor error of judgement, deleted the tweet and made an apology.

But, after hearing of Suso's punishment, Enrique tweeted: 'Is amazing how fa can fine my friend @suso30fernandez for a banter thing. Was just a joke!!!'

It's a stupid thing to tweet and not even funny, but it's still a bit silly that he gets a fine for that.

But Enrique looked gay with posting all those naked photos of himself. It's just a laugh, if I was gay I'd never be offended by that, but more aroused by Jose's sexuality.

10,000 pounds is a week of Suso's wages. It's A LOT. Porto fans got 20,000 euros charge for racist chants. Suarez/Terry got 20/40k charge for use of racist language if I am not mistaken.

I hate the new age where everyone gets offended by single little things....we live in a age full of pansies and everyone wants to sue others to milk them for money.

O, THIS GUY WINKED AT ME, SEXUAL ASSAULT !!!!

I'll put myself out there by saying that a.) I am not in any way homophobic, but b.) I can't go ten minutes hanging around my friends without calling one of them a homophobic slur in a disrespectful fashion.

It's just something so ingrained in man love/bromance society these days that it's second nature for men to use these words in bouts of piss taking. I agree that action was necessary but $16,000, for a man that young is unbelievably excessive.

Seems a bit stupid. It was just a joke said to another friend, there was no harm intended.

Is it even remotely possible he's using "gay's" dictionary definition (which is positively connoted)?

Le Samourai wrote:Is it even remotely possible he's using "gay's" dictionary definition (which is positively connoted)?

As in happy or some variation thereof? No, not really.

It was clearly meant to reflect on Enrique's sexual orientation as it was preceded by pictures of Enrique getting his teeth cleaned and some other things, all while shirtless.

I find the fine really okay, TBH, "gay" shouldn't be an insult, and using any term used to describe homosexuals as an insult should be fined on persons with a representative function, which footballers are.

I'm for letting them express their opinion any way they wish, but that's not an opinion, it's a slur. And TBH I think in 20 or 30 years time "*bleep*" will be as much of a no-go word as "*bleep*" is now.

That being said, calling someone "gay" as an insult doesn't make you a homophobe, and I doubt the guy is a homophobe. It's just that it perpetuates hate speech, I wouldn't give any of you guys much shit for it, and I'm guilty of stuff like that myself, but none of us represent a huge sports club wiht millions of fans.

Edit: LoL the f-word with two "g"s that's a slur against homosexuals is censored on here and "*bleep*" isn't?
Either way, let's just pretend I wrote "a massive insult against homosexuals" and "the n-word", and forget about it.

TBH Viva, we've never had a problem with people using the latter, but have had issues with people using the former. As we enter the terms ourselves we do it on a necessity-driven basis. Of course, you already could have surmised as much and simply wanted to use the chance to go off-topic complaining about the word censor again. Please refrain from doing so.

justdoit_ wrote:I'll put myself out there by saying that a.) I am not in any way homophobic, but b.) I can't go ten minutes hanging around my friends without calling one of them a homophobic slur in a disrespectful fashion.

It's just something so ingrained in man love/bromance society these days that it's second nature for men to use these words in bouts of piss taking. I agree that action was necessary but $16,000, for a man that young is unbelievably excessive.

This is exactly why action is necessary. TBH, I use these terms with my friends as well, and I agree that it's ingrained in culture - which is why a lot of organizations are cracking down on public figures using these terms. By stopping footballers from perpetuating usage of "gay" as an insult, the FA is attempting to help REMOVE these things from culture. Saying that they're ingrained doesn't mean we should stop trying, it means we need to do more, and I don't think the FA was out of line by punishing Suso. 10,000 is a bit much in my opinion, but some reaction was necessary, and I'm not setting the numbers, so I really don't mind. I don't think anything about this was that crazy.

stevieg8 wrote:

justdoit_ wrote:I'll put myself out there by saying that a.) I am not in any way homophobic, but b.) I can't go ten minutes hanging around my friends without calling one of them a homophobic slur in a disrespectful fashion.

It's just something so ingrained in man love/bromance society these days that it's second nature for men to use these words in bouts of piss taking. I agree that action was necessary but $16,000, for a man that young is unbelievably excessive.

This is exactly why action is necessary. TBH, I use these terms with my friends as well, and I agree that it's ingrained in culture - which is why a lot of organizations are cracking down on public figures using these terms. By stopping footballers from perpetuating usage of "gay" as an insult, the FA is attempting to help REMOVE these things from culture. Saying that they're ingrained doesn't mean we should stop trying, it means we need to do more, and I don't think the FA was out of line by punishing Suso. 10,000 is a bit much in my opinion, but some reaction was necessary, and I'm not setting the numbers, so I really don't mind. I don't think anything about this was that crazy.

Soild point, but I dont see it working.

I mean, Suso in private is still going to say it if he wants to. Regular folks dont say it because celebs say it, so them being punished isnt really going to change peoples thought process on it.

It all does really is stop it being said in public, is that really changing the culture?

10,000 is a lot, don't disagree, but he's being made an example off. He can always appeal to get that down, and probably will. In any event, I agree that as a public figure he should weigh his words more carefully.

I assume they would do the same for "retard" for stupid and "jew" for stingy. Frankly we would all be better off if we stopped doing that.

The Franchise wrote:Soild point, but I dont see it working.

I mean, Suso in private is still going to say it if he wants to. Regular folks dont say it because celebs say it, so them being punished isnt really going to change peoples thought process on it.

It all does really is stop it being said in public, is that really changing the culture?

Well the fact that it's being punished is an indicator that the public frowns at this sort of behavior, right? So there does seem to be some indication that culture is changing.

RedOranje wrote:TBH Viva, we've never had a problem with people using the latter, but have had issues with people using the former. As we enter the terms ourselves we do it on a necessity-driven basis. Of course, you already could have surmised as much and simply wanted to use the chance to go off-topic complaining about the word censor again. Please refrain from doing so.

Nah, I was just wondering since I figured the "n-word" to be worse, but after your explanation, it really doesn't surprise me the other one was used more on this forum.

I was really just expressing my surprise, and those are purely insulting words, I don't mind them being censored, so this wouldn't even touch on that discussion. Sorry for making such an impression.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

The Franchise wrote:Soild point, but I dont see it working.

I mean, Suso in private is still going to say it if he wants to. Regular folks dont say it because celebs say it, so them being punished isnt really going to change peoples thought process on it.

It all does really is stop it being said in public, is that really changing the culture?

Well the fact that it's being punished is an indicator that the public frowns at this sort of behavior, right? So there does seem to be some indication that culture is changing.

The public?

I dont think the public are fining him are they?

No but I assume the FA wouldn't do something like that without public support, the complaints I've read are mostly about the size of the fine and not really the logic behind it.

I could be wrong, of course.

I think the public merely thinks it was a stupid, unfunny and immature joke, but fining Suso for it is a little harsh.

VivaStPauli wrote:

RedOranje wrote:TBH Viva, we've never had a problem with people using the latter, but have had issues with people using the former. As we enter the terms ourselves we do it on a necessity-driven basis. Of course, you already could have surmised as much and simply wanted to use the chance to go off-topic complaining about the word censor again. Please refrain from doing so.

Nah, I was just wondering since I figured the "n-word" to be worse, but after your explanation, it really doesn't surprise me the other one was used more on this forum.

I was really just expressing my surprise, and those are purely insulting words, I don't mind them being censored, so this wouldn't even touch on that discussion. Sorry for making such an impression.

Fair enough then. Apologies for snapping at you.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:No but I assume the FA wouldn't do something like that without public support, the complaints I've read are mostly about the size of the fine and not really the logic behind it.

I could be wrong, of course.

FA acting without public support? That happens all the bloody time. The English FA are FAMED for pissing off the public.

For goodness sake. Does anybody over the age of 10 actually get offended if they get called gay? Honestly, how over-sensitive do they think people are? Frankly if you're an adult and you get offended by somebody calling you a name then you need to have a good look at yourself, words DO NOT hurt, they have the power that you choose to give them. If you decide that words don't hurt you then they don't hurt, simple.

FA is a joke, not surprising.. these cases usually become laughing stocks for a reason (my favorite is Ferdinand's choc ice tweet )