Tottenham plan to appeal the Football Association’s decision to ban Rodrigo Bentancur for seven matches over a racist remark he made about team-mate Son Heung-min.
While Spurs are not appealing the guilty verdict, it is understood that the club will challenge the length of the ban, which exceeded the minimum six games applied by the FA for racist abuse.
Telegraph Sport revealed that the severity of the ban and the process behind the decision shocked Spurs’ rivals, who felt they had been made an example of.
The FA introduced a minimum six-game ban for racist abuse five years ago, but Bentancur was handed an extra match after it was deemed that his comments constituted an “aggravated breach”.
Tottenham’s appeal will be aimed at reducing Bentancur’s ban, although it is unlikely to be reduced below the minimum six-game threshold, despite perceived inconsistencies regarding other cases.
Enzo Fernandez and Rodri escaped FA investigations over comments made while on international duty this summer. Bernardo Silva was given a one-game ban in 2019 for a tweet involving his former Manchester City team-mate Benjamin Mendy. Edison Cavani was banned for three games in 2021 over a social media post in which he used the term “negrito”.
Under FA rules published in 2020, sanctioning guidelines allow regulatory commissions to apply a ban below the minimum six games where an offence is “in writing only or via any communication device” and another specific mitigating factor is present.
The fact Bentancur’s offence came via a spoken interview on YouTube meant that he could not receive a punishment under the six-game ban. But it has been pointed out to Telegraph Sport that the interview was seen by most people after being widely shared on social media, which has prompted questions over whether or not it should be treated differently to the offences of Bernardo and Cavani.
Punishable offence
Bentancur was banned for seven games and fined £100,000 for suggesting in a YouTube interview in Uruguay that Son was indistinguishable in looks from other South Koreans.
Bentancur was being interviewed during a tour of his home when Uruguayan journalist Rafa Cotelo asked: “Well, what about the Korean’s shirt?”
After questioning whether the journalist was asking about “Sonny”, Bentancur then added: “Or one of Sonny’s cousins as they all look more or less the same.”
Following charges in September, a panel found that he had shown “genuine remorse” but he should have “foreseen substantial publicity” in making the abusive joke.
It was further found proven that his comments constituted an “aggravated breach”, as they included a reference to nationality and/or race and/or ethnic origin.
There is a belief that Tottenham and Bentancur have been made an example of and that the player’s own apology, together with Son’s backing, has been used against him.
In the written reasons for Bentancur’s ban, it is stated that: “His first apology, drafted without consultation with THFC or any other adviser and posted the day after the film had been brought to his attention, explained it as “just a very bad joke” (although in his statement, he said that “sarcastic” would have been a better word than “joke”). That suggests that the player himself realised what he had said was offensive, and was anxious to correct it as soon as possible. His second apology equally appears to have acknowledged that his remarks had been objectively offensive, which is why he apologised for offence caused.”
It then added: “In these apologies (particularly the first), the player appears to realise and accept that his remarks were objectively insulting and/or abusive and this offensive, and apologise for the offence he has caused to Heung-min Son and those who share his characteristics of nationality and/or race and/or ethnic origin.”
Sources outside Tottenham have expressed surprise to Telegraph Sport that Bentancur’s own attempt at an apology would be effectively used against him, particularly when English is not the first language of the Uruguay international.
Similarly, the fact the written reasons refer to support from Son as further evidence that Bentancur accepted his remarks were insulting has been noted with an element of astonishment.
In the written reasons, it is stated that: “The statements made by Heung-Min Son (see paragraphs13 and 15 above). These again appear to be premised on the player’s remarks having been objectively offensive, and regarded by both Heung-Min Son and the player himself as such.
“For example, Heung-Min Son is reported as saying: “I’ve spoken with Lolo. He made a mistake. He knows this and has apologised.” And: “He knew. He apologised straight afterwards when he had holiday.... We are all human and all make mistakes and we learn from it.”
Son had been keen to try to help Bentancur and wanted to speak up in his defence, saying: “Lolo would not mean to ever intentionally say something offensive. We are brothers and nothing has changed at all.
“When we came back for pre-season, he [Bentancur] felt sorry and he almost cried when he apologised publicly and personally as well. He felt like he was really sorry. We are all human and all make mistakes and we learn from it.”