Nice Premium: Do you think the disciplinary action towards the players for their behavior during the World Cup in South Africa was essential, in some way a necessary act, or would it have been better to “move on”?
The disciplinary sanction was not only essential but also crucial to restore a semblance of credibility to the Federation following the disaster at the World Cup in South Africa. These sanctions should have been imposed much more promptly. It was immediately, around July 20, that the disciplinary body should have been seized, even by a resigning ESCALETTE, who could still “handle current affairs.”
Instead of appointing an investigative commission (not regulatory), which was fortunately transformed into an “information commission” (a legal one) by President DUCHAUSSOY, an investigator should have been appointed, as provided by the disciplinary code, to uncover the truth about this sordid and dishonorable affair. The disciplinary body could then have made a decision by the first week of August at the latest, meaning soon after the incident. Only then could the matter be “moved on from.”
NP: Do you believe the Disciplinary Commission was able to conduct a sufficiently thorough investigation to clearly establish each party’s responsibilities?
Certainly, the voluntary absence of some protagonists might have partially hindered the truth-seeking process. The commission did its best with the resources it had: the material act of being seized by the Federal Council (based on the conclusions of the information commission); hearing witnesses: ESCALETTE, DOMENECH, VALENTIN, BOGHOSSIAN; and questioning present players and the lawyers representing certain absentees. Additionally, the media widely reported on the statements of all parties before the meeting on August 17, so I believe the commission members could form a reasonably accurate understanding of what really happened in South Africa. Therefore, it can be assumed that the responsibilities were established with sufficient certainty to justify disciplinary action.
NP: Do you think the decisions of the Disciplinary Commission were fair or rather influenced by preconceptions meant to satisfy public opinion?
In any case, it’s evident that the demands of the grassroots football opinion were not met, as the sanctions seemed lenient to repair the affront to the Flag and the jersey, the disgrace, and shame brought upon French football! If there was any bias, it was primarily the absurd idea, in my view, of absolutely wanting to “move on.” Moreover, if one considers Laurent BLANC’s successive statements, notably in the journal “L’Equipe” and the magazine “France Football,” they boil down to this principle: “the end justifies the means.” Once he decided that what mattered most was qualifying and hopefully performing well at Euro 2012, then, by all means, players deemed essential for the national team should not have been punished or only symbolically. Personally, I would have preferred the coach, in coordination with the DTN, to think about completely rebuilding the French Team, even if it meant skipping Euro 2012! to focus on the 2014 World Cup, to make up for the insult to the country in 2012. By working towards building a strong, united, morally upright, young, supportive team, embodying joy, simplicity, and closeness to people, much like the magnificent French athletics and swimming teams, the Federation would have genuinely worked towards winning back the hearts of our sport’s enthusiasts, truly satisfying public opinion.
NP: Do you think sanctioning certain players instead of the entire group was fair regarding what actually happened (the players acting in solidarity in publishing a statement signed by all)?
One might consider that collective punishment was enforced through the non-selection of the “shameful group” for the friendly match NORWAY/FRANCE. Furthermore, in French disciplinary law (as in criminal law), collective sanctions are illegal. I would add that there is no greater injustice than treating unequal situations equally. The principle is the individualization of penalties, and sports judges must apply it based on the case files submitted to them. For example, a referee cannot issue a collective yellow card to an entire team behaving badly on the field. They must identify the guilty players or those more culpable, the leaders. As with any human group, within the French Team, there are leaders, core figures, instigators. Hence, it was quite natural that, strictly on disciplinary grounds, not all players were “put in the same basket.”
NP: Do you believe the Disciplinary Commission intended to assert a “political” role to affirm the authority of the FFF during the institutional crisis of French football?
The answer is definite and it is NO. If the members of the disciplinary commission had wanted to exercise a “political” role, they would have acted like real politicians. They are far from it. A politician would have considered the situation more globally, focusing essentially on the general interest. Precisely, what did the general interest require? Taking a decision that truly restores the image of the Federation and French football. How should that have been done?
Here’s my opinion:
1. First, “apply pressure” before the August 17 meeting by making it known (through Federation members) that the upcoming sanction could range from a simple reprimand to a lifetime ban, including all suspensions – firm or on probation – not only from the French Team but also and perhaps especially from clubs. The Federal Council can always request FIFA to extend a firm suspension imposed in France. I think this would remind, especially ANELKA and Bayern Munich, of the importance of respect and to be less arrogant towards the French Federation…
2. Secondly, alongside firm bans from the French Team, I would have envisaged firm club sanctions with – for the present players – a proposal to immediately accept or refuse the conversion of the firm club sanction into a reparative penalty, through five or six initiatives beneficial to amateur football, including for those playing outside France. Since, as far as I know, there is amateur football in England or Germany too.
Thus the image of the Federation would have been restored because not only would the involved players be deprived of the French Team, which is indeed a punishment, but in addition, to continue playing in clubs, they would have to work towards amateur football, i.e., towards the general interest by leading local training camps, supervising football schools, etc…. In short, showing something other than aloofness, grandeur, headphones, and hoods over their heads, and returning to what football can offer most beautifully: giving happiness to mankind.
