An expression commonly used in the criminological field is the “criminal comfort zone” to refer to the situation that any individual may find himself willing to engage in behavior for his own benefit, but that contradicts legal or ethical norms. without this implying that your image as an honest person is compromised or questioned. An area where this concept can be applied is football. And especially with the corrupt federative management carried out by its leaders without this implying an assumption of guilt or an expression of regret. All of this for the simple reason that in that criminal comfort zone, immoral or illegal action is normalized or even justified.
Another area of football criminal comfort – unfortunately, also current – is the expression of racist insults by fans towards players and coaches. Normally, this takes place from the stands, by fans who are diluted in the crowd, taking advantage of the historical acceptance that these behaviors are allowed in the football stadium. That privilege, they believe, is included in the price of admission. The reasons for this tolerance have been several, but the main one has been to appeal to the idea that football fields were places for fans to expel their personal, work-related or any other type of tension. The result, in any case, is that this insulting and racist fan, once the match is over, can return home calmly, without receiving any critical reaction from the rest of the fans and, therefore, his image as an honest citizen remains intact. This understanding is accompanied by a general passivity on the part of the clubs and the federation that, until recently, had barely reacted to prevent and sanction these attitudes.
But there has certainly been a cultural shift in recent years that has led to the adoption of new strategies, legislative changes and anti-racism protocols. However, in view of the repetition of the insults, they have not been successful. These continue to be repeated, becoming not only a sporting problem, but have even generated diplomatic tensions with countries like Brazil, given the nationality of some of the main victims of racist expressions.
That is why it is not surprising that more drastic measures are resorted to, such as the suspension of the match and loss of points for the local club or the closure of the stands. However, these decisions raise problems by extending the sanction to fans not responsible for the infraction or even to the club itself, beyond whether it had acted correctly by adopting the protocols established for this purpose. But the appeal for other, more drastic interventions does not end here. One of the most notorious victims of racist insults, Vinicius, has called for tougher sanctions. In recent statements she pointed out: “We will only have victory when the racists leave the stadiums and go straight to jail, a place they deserve.”
But is this the only way to explore to solve the problem? Are these types of sanctions the ones that will eliminate a mental framework as old and widespread as racism? Little has been done in Spanish football (clubs, federations, public authorities) to test other strategies of a nature other than the disproportionate punitivism underlying the measures mentioned above. It would be enough to look at what is done in other leagues to ask whether it would not be more appropriate for this type of “crimes” to opt for so-called restorative practices, characterized by ensuring that the perpetrator of the infraction takes responsibility for the damage caused and that, as a result of this process of understanding the harm caused to the victim (and the collateral damage to his club), he is able to modify his beliefs and feel regret and even ask for forgiveness. An example of these restorative measures was the one adopted by Chelsea FC for some of its fans after several incidents in which they made anti-Semitic proclamations in their stadium. Instead of sanctioning them “conventionally”, the club organized a trip. The surprise was the choice of destination: the Auschwitz concentration camp. The reason offered for such a choice was simple: the measures adopted so far with these fans – basically sanctions – had not been successful. Hence, the club’s intention that the first-person view of the suffering of the Jews would make fans appreciate with more perspective the damage caused by intolerance and xenophobia.
It is understandable that there may be doubts regarding these measures. But these reluctance would be more justified if, after experiencing them, there was no improvement. Let’s give them a chance to fail.
José Luis Pérez Trivino He is a professor of Philosophy of Law at the Pompeu Fabra University and principal investigator of the research project funded by the CSD: “Prevention and resolution of conflicts in sports clubs: mediation and restorative practices.”
You can follow The USA Print in Facebook and xor sign up here to receive our weekly newsletter.
_
