The FA v Rio Ferdinand: Twitter Slang & Education Courses

It is not often we see sporting governing bodies sanctioning football players for issues with regards to public speaking, although when such public speaking occurs in written form and on social media, the punishment is usually swift and severe. 

Rio Ferdinand must have realised that this is certainly the case, when The FA, a few days ago, handed down, against him, a three-match ban and a £25,000 fine for the use of the word 'sket' in a tweet. It also ordered Rio Ferdinand to attend an education course.  

For those who are unfamiliar with the definition of the word 'sket', it is submitted that the offending word makes reference to a woman or a girl that could be characterised as promiscuous. It is considered to be slang and by definition, it is derogatory.

The offending tweet, which was in response to criticism against Rio Ferdinand was published as follows: “@ManCunian56: @rioferdy5 @matiousmarston Maybe QPR will sign a goodCB they need one” > get ya mum in, plays the field well son! #sket”. 

The FA, in its written decision, stated that the tweet was abusive and/or indecent and/or insulting and/or improper contrary to FA Rule E3 (1). The FA also stated that the offence was aggravated, contrary to FA Rule E3 (2), because it made reference to gender. 

This was not the first time that Rio Ferdinand had to be subjected to The FA's disciplinary procedures for his Twitter comments. In fact, The FA's Regulatory Commission, who adjudicated on the matter, made a point confirming that Rio Ferdinand had, in 2012, created again controversy when he had referred to Ashley Cole as a 'choc ice.'

Many would think that Rio Ferdinand is entitled to freedom of speech. Given, however, The FA's private status, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech, does not have applicability here. 

Rio Ferdinand, who has decided not to appeal the decision, must be left wondering (and for the purposes of using legal arguments), whether the punishment against him was appropriate and/or whether The FA's regulatory framework and the execution of its penological principles, create issues that fail to determine the necessary level of proportionality.

Setting aside the argument that The FA has a 99% success rate with regards to liability against individuals in disciplinary hearings and without making reference to other tweets that have pointed out, since then, that Malkey Mackay and Iain Moody have not been punished for their alleged 'sexist, racist and homophobic' text messages, it could be suggested that The FA is sending a powerful message to its members that it would not tolerate public comments that have as an effect of tarnishing the reputation and the image of the game.

Whether this message will be received loud and clear, it remains to be seen. Until then, football players would have to accept the view (and the established precedent) that twitter comments have the potential of 'granting' them with match bans, expensive fines and a trip back to school for their education course....

Dr Gregory Ioannidis
12 November 2014