Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/442526
9 I 've always thought there was something odd about football. And not just because the ball is the wrong shape, either. No, there is something decidedly surreal about the beautiful game… or at least, what it has come to represent. Something that defies all notions of logic and common sense. For instance: we are all acquainted with the type of person whose entire life revolves exclusively around the fortunes of teams like Manchester United, Juventus or Inter… you know, the sort who would miss their own daughter's wedding to watch a 'derby' or a Champions League final at home. You try telling these people that what they're watching is "just a sport". You may as well tell them their mother is "just a woman"; or that alcohol is "just an organic compound whose molecule contains one or more hydroxyl groups attached to a carbon atom". Clearly, if something has the power to radically alter a grown adult's perception of reality, it cannot be so lightly dismissed. And some people not only allow football to dictate their entire modus operandi… they also attribute all sorts of other qualities to this global phenomenon, whether or not these qualities have anything to do with football at all. By now you will have worked out that this was a small preamble to the Ched Evans case (why else would I be writing about football?), which seems to illustrate all the above with spectacular precision. Take, for instance, our Prime Minister's recent tweet that "footballers are role models"... (and, therefore, those with criminal records should presumably never be allowed to play again). Sorry to ask, but… where, exactly, did Joseph Muscat get his definition of 'footballer' from? Last I looked, the word referred only to a category of (mostly) young men – as a rule, in their early 20s – who get paid more than the average GDP of a medium-sized country to play a game that doesn't even require any O-levels. Am I now to understand that these same 'footballers' also have a responsibility to inspire entire generations of young people with their ethical life-stances and exemplary behaviour? And if so… since when? I myself have certainly never looked to any footballer – no, not even Horst Hrubesch of West Germany (I liked him because his name reminded me of something out of Conan the Barbarian) – for tips on how to conduct my own private life. For one thing, I don't have a few hundred million euros tucked away in a bank somewhere, so I wouldn't be able to emulate their exploits even if I wanted to. But then… well, just look at their exploits, will you? Is this the sort of thing we are supposed to be inspired by? Ched Evans is hardly the first 'bad- boy' footballer to make headlines for all the wrong reasons, you know. In what way was Diego Armando a 'role model' for world youth? For the amount of coke he snorted after winning Napoli the 'campionato' in 1989? For being disqualified from USA '94 after failing a drugs test? Even the more respected footballers are hardly ever held up as ideal role models. George Best, for instance. Don't get me wrong, I admired the man as much as the next hipster: brilliant footballer, great character in his own right, had a beard, etc. But a role model? Because he was permanently accompanied by Playboy models wherever he went? Because he died of liver failure brought on by extreme alcoholism at the age of 59? I could go on. Luis Suarez was certainly a role model… for people like Hannibal Lecter and Count Dracula. Paul Gascoigne gave us all a lesson in how to grow old disgracefully, and many years before one's time. Eric Cantona inspired millions of kids worldwide to take up martial arts. Even Zinedin Zidane, who now models for some fashion line, has been known to head-butt the occasional opponent on the pitch. Are any of the above examples counterbalanced by great philanthropists and model citizens? Perhaps, here and there. Pele was by all accounts a decent bloke. So was Gianfranco Zola. But the fact remains that the game itself is not conducive to such exceptions. Today there is infinitely more money invested in football than in global cancer research: and you can't pay that kind of money to men at their most irresponsible age… then also expect them to behave like a bunch of little Mahatma Gandhis. It just ain't gonna happen… This brings me to Ched Evans, and his short-lived offer to play for Hibernians despite a conviction for rape. As far as I've understood the case, Evans was convicted of rape by a British court, and served two and a half years of a five-year sentence (he was released on parole). Technically, this means that he is still serving his sentence now… just not the custodial part. Naturally one can always argue– and I would tend to agree – that five years is a rather lenient sentence for a crime as serious as rape. And it was an ugly rape, too… (always assuming that the British courts got their facts right: Evans has maintained his innocence throughout). I won't go into the details, but what emerged from the verdict was the picture of predatory exploitation of a woman who was clearly in no position to even understand what was going on… still less consent to it. You cannot look at that picture (again, assuming it represents the true facts), and not come away with the impression that as far as Evans was concerned, women exist to service the sexual impulses of men. His crime, in brief, encompasses more than the sum total of his actions. It exposes a primal and dangerous attitude towards women in general. But still, what Ched Evans got for that crime was five years: half of which have already been served in jail. This raises a couple of questions that have baffled me ever since this controversy began. The first of these is: why, exactly, would Hibs – or any other team outside the UK – even attempt to sign up a player who is currently on parole, and therefore cannot even leave his home country? Leaving aside all ethical considerations – which is incidentally what Hibs did anyway – all the club had to do was a little research on the background of the man they were trying to hire (something all prospective employers are expected to do anyway) and none of this would have arisen in the first place. What this also means is that Hibs simply made their move too early. But had they waited another two and a half years and tried to sign him once his sentence had been served… what then? This is where the second question comes into the equation. It is not just the actions of a single football club that seem irrational or bizarre. Public reactions to the entire case have likewise been steeped in absurdity from day one. It is as though we have exported the inherent irrationality of football – the sort of irrationality that arises whenever a crowd of supporters disagrees with a referee's decision – into the sphere of employment or industrial legislation. This is one example, from a female British columnist (Suzanne Moore) writing in the Guardian. "[Evans] is entitled to use his skills to make a living. He can coach. But like many others, I find the idea of this convicted rapist returning to professional football, by signing to Oldham Athletic, sickening." Hm. Let's try and work this one out: so as a convicted rapist, Chris Evans can never play professional football again… but he can coach? Huh? Who makes up these rules, anyway? As I said earlier, there is not a single logical reason under the sun to ever regard a professional footballer as a 'role model' for anybody. Indeed, there are many reasons not to. But a coach is a different story. Football coaches, by definition, are there to control and instil a sense of discipline among the team. The whole relationship cannot even work, unless the players actually look up to their coach as a source of inspiration. Yet someone whose criminal record precludes him from playing the game, can still take on a paid position as a professional whose job is to teach others how to play. To be, in a word, a 'role model' in the most literal sense imaginable. How much sense does that make? The short answer is… none at all. It's football, remember? It's not meant to make any sense. But it's also the way controversies now unfold, and we see the same pattern emerging all the time: a sense of moral outrage, that apparently allows people to simply dictate their own 'rules' and 'regulations' about how everyone else should act, and then behave as if their own opinions are somehow legally binding. Another recurring argument in this case is that British law precludes convicted sex offenders from a number of 'trusted' professions: doctors, teachers, nurses, etc. Small problem: the register of banned professions does not actually include football. So why is the argument still being raised? Because the register 'should' contain football? And because – like a flawed referee decision in a football match – this omission can somehow be 'corrected' if the crowd boos loudly enough? Sorry, folks: it might work like that on the pitch, but in the real world it's a different ballgame. It is the parameters of the law that count here. You can disagree with those parameters all you like… but the one thing you can't do is expect everyone else to accept your own opinion as a substitute for the law. It isn't… just as Evans' own opinion that he did nothing wrong isn't, either. That is the actual legal situation regarding Chris Evans, whether you are personally comfortable with it or not. Everything else is just opinion: strongly held opinion, perhaps; but opinion all the same, and therefore worth no more than any other equal but opposite opinion in the same matter. My opinion is naturally worth the same as anyone else's. If it were up to me I wouldn't sign Chris Evans to play football for my club, even if there were no existing legal impediments at the time. I happen to share the widespread disgust at the crime he has been convicted of… though I don't share the same moral expectations of footballers as Joseph Muscat and so many others. But that's me, and I'm not the management of Hibernians FC, am I? If, in the absence of legal impediments, Hibs want to sign Chris Evans regardless of ethical considerations, and then weather the Twitter-storm of criticism and outrage that will inevitably follow… who am I to argue? And who, for that matter, is everybody else? Raphael Vassallo maltatoday, WEDNESDAY, 7 JANUARY 2015 Opinion Crazy little thing called 'football' Ched Evans is hardly the first 'bad-boy' footballer to make headlines for all the wrong reasons, you know. In what way was Diego Armando a 'role model' for world youth? Ched Evans' rape victim, who was forced to change her identity multiple times after her ordeal was made public