Rangers FC: Morality or the Law?

It has been a remarkable week and the response, to my Rangers FC related posts, has been overwhelming and fascinating. The comments of my readers have been, by and large, very constructive and thought provoking. They have certainly generated more issues that require analysis.

The most important, perhaps, issue under analysis is the inevitable connection of morality with the law or, at least, the application of the regulations. I specifically explained in previous posts http://lawtop20.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/does-scottish-football-need-rangers-fc.html, http://lawtop20.blogspot.com/2012/04/celtic-v-rangers-two-clubs-with-one.html that a distinction needs to be made between what morality dictates and what the rules of the SFA oblige their Disciplinary Panels to consider and apply.

Celtic fans mostly [perhaps rightly so] feel aggrieved that Rangers have been given the opportunity to continue with their participation in the SPL. Most of my Celtic friends certainly believe that the expulsion of Rangers could have been the more appropriate method of punishment, for a club that has developed a series of debts and further allegations of 'double contracts.'

I cannot disagree, completely, with the view that the Rangers' punishment could have been more severe. Such view, however, must not be accompanied by an uncontrollable desire for revenge. I suggested in a previous post that barristers, mostly, are trained to ensure that anger and hatred are kept outside their field of reasoning and, certainly, outside the court room. Anger usually clouds one's reasoning and it affects the person's judgement. With this in mind, we need to emphasise the point that although the drafting of specific rules may have a 'touch' of morality, their application, nevertheless, very much depends on the actual wording of such rules. 

As explained in previous posts, the judges cannot stretch the boundaries of their judicial creativity. They need to ensure that they apply the rules purposefully and not pedantically. In doing so, they must also take into consideration the intention of the draftsman and the elements that the draftsman was trying to protect when he was drafting the rules. The same goes for the governing bodies and in this case the SFA. In the Rangers matter, the Disciplinary Panel attempted to apply these principles of interpretation, within the limitations the rules created. It is true that they had a wide variety of sanctions at their disposal. They chose the ones they felt were proportionate and reasonable under the circumstances and according to the evidence and the facts presented to them. The two documents available to them, namely the Rules of the Association and the Protocol Document, defined the boundaries for their decision-making and the application of the sanctions. I am not quite sure, however, whether the jurisprudence of FIFA and that of the CAS influenced their decision. If they had received such influence, I would have expected more severe penalties and I am convinced that a case, for more severe penalties, could be made.

It is concluded, therefore, that whatever view we may hold on the matter, such view may be irrelevant if the rules of the association do not permit for the punishment we desire. Every disciplinary Panel has to consider the sanctions available and not choose sanctions out of the sky. Such sanctions cannot be influenced by a determination of what is moral according to our views.

What is moral for us, may be immoral for others and vice versa. Although the majority may feel that a specific segment of society may disapprove of a certain action, another segment may approve of the same action. There will always be a case to be made for the minority and such case may strongly argue that the minority should not be marginalised. 

We all see things differently, but when it comes to the application of the law, morality may not preoccupy the precepts of reasonableness and justice. One anonymous fan pressed upon me, the other day, the argument that they were happy that such view was only my view, because it was 'wrong beyond belief'. The fan did not give their reasons as to why my view was wrong. The case may be that I am, indeed, wrong; when it comes down to 'belief', however, further ambiguities may appear in the analysis. At this juncture,  morality and belief need to step aside and give their place to law and justice. Remember, we do not make law because of the existence of morality, because if that was the case, you could have started questioning whose morality are we applying after all and why. Instead we concentrate on the application of three important principles: justice, fairness and equality.

Finally, it is important and quite fascinating when there are so many views available, particularly, when such views come from specific Media in Scotland. Reporting the law, however, is one matter and applying it with analysis is another...

Dr. Gregory Ioannidis

21 May 2012