There are published rules of the game, such as offside rule, no hands, etc. And then there are the actual rules of games, those that aren’t necessarily published but guide how we act and interact with the published set of rules. These unspoken rules or norms form the basis of football ethics.
Football ethics is a complicated subject to discuss. First of all, football is a global sport and its ethical lines therefore transcend the borders of nations. Yet regional differences clearly play a role in what is considered “good” or “bad” in sport as well as in everyday life.
However, there are specific cases of ethical lines and limits. I will look at two separate cases: one where a rule was broken and there were no consequences, and the other where a rule was broken and the punishment was administered quickly and strictly.
CASE ONE: A rule broken with mixed reactions
On June 22, 1986, Argentina beat England in the quarter-finals of the World Cup, thanks in part to a controversial goal scored by Diego Maradona. The goal, called “Hand of God,” was clearly in violation of the rules, as shown in the video. Neither referee was sure at the time whether or not it was a violation, but videos show Maradona using his hand. The goal sparked intense reactions from football fans – some celebrated the goal, others decried it – but no further action was taken.(1). So, even though the act was not necessarily “good,” it was not deemed ethically bad enough for outside entities to intervene.
So we are left with an example of when breaking the rules is morally acceptable. Maradona used his hand, in flagrant violation of the fundamental rules of football, but he was not punished for it. His goal counted, the victory stood and there were no other consequences. Although some people were upset, it is not entirely clear whether it was the English fans who were more upset about the defeat because of the illegal goal or whether they actually rejected Maradona’s rule-breaking goal on principle. If anything, his goal is more often met with general amusement, smirks and blaming the referees for not calling it – not the player for trying it. (2).
This contrasts sharply with the second case.
CASE TWO: A broken rule leading to a sanction
During a match against Italy during the 2014 World Cup, Uruguayan player Luis Suarez appeared to have bitten Italian defender Giorgio Chiellini. This type of violent action against an opposing player is clearly against the rules: it is prohibited, just as the use of the hand is also prohibited. Yet this act provoked a stronger reaction in response. The act was condemned and abhorred, and Suarez was, after the match finished and the incident re-examined, suspended from “all football-related activity” for four months, and had to pay a fine for the incident. (3). This action was strictly punished and not amused.
Italian Giorgio Chiellini after being bitten by Luis Suarez.
Suarez’s action crossed an unspoken ethical line. But this ethical line does not seem so clear.
Maybe the line is an injury: doing something that could likely injure an opponent is considered unethical. This seems like a compelling option. After all, we like to think this is true, and sometimes we even act as if it is. For example, players “flop” or feign extreme pain to increase the likelihood that the other player will be reprimanded and given a foul.
But is it really that simple? If we truly believe that intentionally causing injury is wrong, then why do we allow and encourage certain types of behaviors that almost always result in injury? For example, sliding tackles are painful, and I would argue that, to some extent, a player tackling another intends to cause some mild form of injury. This could be a scratch on the knee, a jolt from hitting the ground hard, pressure on the ankles, etc. And some people even encourage the particularly painful, but still legal, sliding tackles for the same reason that they will somehow interfere with the player’s activity if performed correctly.
So maybe “causing harm” was too simplistic an ethical line to draw. Maybe it’s a little deeper, or a more theoretical idea of ”evil”. Perhaps people rejected Suarez’s act as opposed to Maradona’s because the bite was inhumane or animalistic. Yet, again, I can think of a million examples where the same people who condemn Suarez also fight like vicious animals in the stands, hurl horrible insults at athletes and many other such inhumane activities . So maybe that’s not it either.
In summary, we take away several things from this discussion. While it is unclear what ethical line Suarez crossed to elicit such a harsh response, it is clear that the rules of the game are not inherently “fair” or “moral.” There are cases where breaking the rules doesn’t really matter, because people don’t attach deeper ethical meaning to the rule in the first place. Thus, the ethics of football are distinct from the rules of the game.
Furthermore, it is very difficult to quantify or explain the ethical standards and ideas that surround football. Football is a global sport influenced by a global spectrum of ideas about what is “right” and “wrong”. There are regional, ethnic, personal, etc. differences. which add to the difficulty of defining an objective ethical line. But while it is difficult to explain or see clearly what our ethical ideas are, the paradox of all this is that ethics dictate our actions (related to football and beyond) more than the rule of law could. never do it.
The references:
(1) http://www.we-heart.com/2014/06/10/maradonas-hand-of-god-the-making-of-an-icon/
(2) ^ http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/484301/Gary-Lineker-congratulates-Diego-Maradona-for-Hand-of-God-Goal
(3) http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/28023882
