“I don’t think – certainly within the SFA – that there are any grounds for punishing Motherwell Football Club, because there is nothing that they could have done to avoid this incident taking place and when it did, by all accounts it was dealt with very swiftly,” says Andy Mitchell, Head of Communications of the SFA. “How it was dealt with is still open to dispute. I wasn’t there so I can’t really give you too much background, but there are issues like should the perpetrators have been arrested, or ejected from the stadium immediately, so in that respect procedures must be improved in dealing with the individuals concerned and calling them to account.”

Motherwell was taken by surprise by the racist abuse of Jason Scotland. They had no reason to expect it as there appears to have been no history of racist conduct by their fans – certainly not an incident involving multiple fans. It was a watershed moment for them. The club co-operated with the police and worked with the Scottish branch of Show Racism The Red Card (SRTRC) and the Scottish Football Association (SFA). Motherwell provided information to the police, but it proved impossible to identify the culprits. In April Strathclyde police closed the file.

“Jason Scotland himself was quoted as saying that he’d never experienced this before in Scotland and he’s been here for three or four years,” says Andy Mitchell, Head of Communications of the SFA, “so everyone was taken by surprise by the incident and from Motherwell’s perspective they had clearly taken all reasonable steps to ensure that there was no history of this, so they could not reasonably have foreseen any such incident taking place. Once the incident occurred they were very swift to condemn it, to hold an anti–racist demonstration as part of the next home match, to work with Show Racism The Red Card. They worked with Strathclyde police to identify the people concerned, so with that framework I don’t think – certainly within the SFA – that there are any grounds for punishing Motherwell Football Club, because there is nothing that they could have done to avoid this incident taking place and when it did, by all accounts it was dealt with very swiftly. How it was dealt with is still open to dispute. I wasn’t there so I can’t really give you too much background, but there are issues like should the perpetrators have been arrested, or ejected from the stadium immediately, so in that respect procedures must be improved in dealing with the individuals concerned and calling them to account.”

Motherwell faced difficulties identifying the culprits as while fans told them to shut up and they did, nobody identified them to stewards or police. They only pointed in the general direction of where the racist abuse had come from. Further information was subsequently obtained from Motherwell fans and provided to the police, but it was too late; the perpetrators were long gone. The evidence suggests that they were not even Motherwell fans. “They were certainly sitting in the Motherwell area in the Main Stand, but whether they were regulars or one off visitors, we don’t know and that makes it very difficult to pursue any kind of case,” says Mr Mitchell. Motherwell’s General Manager, Russell Rodger, is more emphatic. He insists that the evidence suggests that they were not Motherwell fans.¹

“We were asked to adopt and implement a ten point plan against racism,” says Mr Rodger. “We try to ensure that we not only know about all the points, but implement them. At our next game which was only a few days later we wanted to show that this club would not stand for any racist or sectarian behaviour. Racist outbursts do not form part of our community.”

Motherwell, itself was very keen to not just combat racism but be seen to be doing it. “We were asked to adopt and implement a ten point plan against racism,” says Mr Rodger. “We try to ensure that we not only know about all the points, but implement them. At our next game which was only a few days later we wanted to show that this club would not stand for any racist or sectarian behaviour. Racist outbursts do not form part of our community.” Mitchell agrees, but he applies it to Scotland as a whole. “The Motherwell incident is probably the worst we’ve had in recent years,” says Mr Mitchell, “and I cannot think of any other match that had racist chanting for many years – early 90s I think.” Not only was there no reason to expect this incident at Motherwell, but it would appear that there was no reason to expect it in Scotland.

Motherwell informed the police of the incident and co-operated fully with Strathclyde police’s investigation, providing them with lines of inquiry. Unfortunately the perpetrators were never identified. Rodger personally passed on information that was provided to him, but all efforts to identify the culprits failed. This was not a club that had ignored a racist incident. And nor had the SFA. Yet under the revised Article 55 of FIFA’s Disciplinary Code Motherwell had to be punished and if the SFA refused to do so, then it too was liable to sanction. Were that to occur, it would be ironic to put it mildly that the one club where a racist incident occurred that was taken seriously by the club resulted in it being the first to be punished under the amended Article 55. And if the SFA had the temerity to support Motherwell, then it ran the risk of Scotland being thrown out of international competition for two years. Some federations may have buckled under such a threat, but to its credit the SFA was made of sterner stuff. It stood by Motherwell and its efforts. The SFA chose to work with the club. It investigated the incident and was satisfied that Motherwell had done their best to identify the culprits and had taken reasonable steps to deal with the problem. The SFA refused to throw Motherwell to the lions. It deserves to be commended for that, but this should not be interpreted as being soft on racism or rejecting the intent of Article 55.

“We fully support the principles of Article 55 and from next season when the three point penalty and other aspects are formally incorporated into the rules of the SFA, the SPL and Scottish football leagues then I think that will be a very tangible threat for clubs who do not take their responsibility seriously and who allow this kind of behaviour to continue in their stadia,” says Mr Mitchell. Nevertheless, under the current wording of Article 55 both Motherwell and the SFA were vulnerable to punishment. Both Motherwell and the SFA believe this to be fundamentally unfair.

“We spoke to our national association the morning afterwards,” says Mr Rodger. “We also had the SFA present at the Hearts game. The club has been congratulated by them on the steps that we took. We were working closely with the national association but also with Show Racism The Red Card to try to correct this impression that Motherwell was a racist club, because it was a great embarrassment to us. Our national association is very keen that these kind of incidents are stamped out. I’m very happy that we are taking this stance. Scottish clubs are not racist. It is alien to us. If this kind of incident occurs we all work together. I’m very happy here at Motherwell – and I can speak for our fans as well – that the national association is taking a very strong stance against racism.” Despite these efforts Motherwell risked punishment under Article 55 as currently worded, as did the SFA as it refused to punish the club.

“I think that they [FIFA] should look at it carefully,” says Mr Rodger, “look at the wording to ensure that there is something that is workable and once it is ensure that it is applied to all associations evenly, not just simply ignore because they think it is unworkable so we are not going to do it. The present version is a little unfair on the home clubs, so let’s look at it again. I think they could reword it to make it more workable and in that case, ensure that all countries’ associations follow it.”

Russell Rodger called on FIFA to look at the wording of Article 55 again. Like Mitchell he supports the intentions, but feels that the wording is unfair. He wants a fairer framework. “I think that they [FIFA] should look at it carefully,” says Mr Rodger, “look at the wording to ensure that there is something that is workable and once it is ensure that it is applied to all associations evenly, not just simply ignore because they think it is unworkable so we are not going to do it. The present version is a little unfair on the home clubs, so let’s look at it again. I think they could reword it to make it more workable and in that case, ensure that all countries’ associations follow it.”

Mitchell agrees. The SFA refused to rush into implementing Article 55. “Certainly within the SFA we have always taken the view that if a club takes all reasonable precautions to prevent disorder, to prevent discrimination, racism, whatever, it is very difficult to hold the club accountable when something does go wrong, such as at Motherwell,” says Mr Mitchell. “One thing that is very positive is that there was a huge outcry about fans shouting racist abuse. Ten years ago it wouldn’t have got a mention and the media coverage in the days following the Motherwell-St Johnstone case was enormous and I think that is very positive and shows that people do care and that there is no hiding place any more for the racists. The media are not slow to let us know when something has gone wrong. That is within Scotland. The result of that match² was secondary in the papers. There were huge reports about the monkey-chanting.”

The SFA accepts that Motherwell did all that could be reasonably expected to identify the culprits. They were unsuccessful, so who should be held responsible for that? Under the amended Article 55 the home club or association is held responsible. There is no discretion as currently worded. There is no consideration of the efforts of the club to identify those responsible, or of the particular circumstances of each case. Rodger thinks that is unfair. “Just before you came in I had a phone call from the police,” he says. “They said they are closing off the paperwork. They said ‘We have not been able to identify them.’ We tried to identify who these people are and we were unable to. We worked very closely with the police without success. I think we have taken all possible steps to try to identify them, as the home club, and the police have done all they possibly could without success, so we really shouldn’t be held responsible. The SFA agreed and refused to punish Motherwell.

“I think that everybody within football – certainly within the Scottish FA – accepts that it was a step in the right direction,” says Mr Mitchell. “It has the best intention, but in terms of FIFA’s request that this should be immediately incorporated into the rulebook, it is not workable.”

Andy Mitchell agrees that Motherwell took all reasonable steps to try to identify the culprits and the SFA refused to punish the club as demanded by Article 55 as it is currently worded. “I think that everybody within football – certainly within the Scottish FA – accepts that it was a step in the right direction,” says Mr Mitchell. “It has the best intention, but in terms of FIFA’s request that this should be immediately incorporated into the rulebook, it is not workable. We are writing a revised set of regulations within the SFA’s Articles of Association that does incorporate the principles of points deduction, fines, other punishments, whatever for incidents where there is discrimination, but it does it in such a way as to be legally workable. We found that as written it would not be legally workable.”

The SFA decided to take its time to ensure that it got the wording right. It has now incorporated the principles of Article 55, but has done so in a fashion that is legally acceptable. The SFA’s wording includes the discretion that is missing from FIFA’s original wording. “Discretion will exist if a club has taken all reasonable steps to prevent or to counter such behaviour,” says Mr Mitchell. They insist that the club must take all reasonable steps to deal with racist incidents and if they do the SFA will not punish them. The original wording of Article 55 did not allow such discretion. This could have put the SFA on a collision course with FIFA, because FIFA originally insisted that Article 55 as currently worded had to be incorporated and implemented from the beginning of the 2006-07 season, yet that does not appear to have occurred. “I think FIFA themselves realised that they maybe jumped in too quickly to implement this change,” says Mr Mitchell.

The Motherwell case amply demonstrates the need for the discretion as this was a club that had taken its responsibilities very seriously. The SFA and Motherwell were put in jeopardy of punishment despite taking their responsibilities very seriously indeed. There are examples of far worse exhibitions of racist conduct than occurred at Motherwell that were either not investigated at all, resulted in far more lenient punishment than should have been imposed, or it remains unclear what punishment if any has been imposed, whereas both Motherwell and the SFA had taken all reasonable steps, both to identify the culprits and to tackle racism. This case showed that there were serious problems with Article 55 as it is currently worded.³

The lack of discretion is not the only problem that could have affected Motherwell. As currently worded, the failure to identify the perpetrators means that the home club or association is held responsible and punished as if the culprits had been identified as their supporters. “I don’t think it’s fair,” says Mr Rodger. “I think there should be an investigation, – an inquiry – but an inquiry that looks at what the home club has done to try and make sure that this does not take place and I think it should be an impartial inquiry. It shouldn’t be you are guilty until you are found innocent. It should be a case of summoning two or three people from other clubs – people who are impartial – to try to find out what the situation was. It should be a case of trying to find out what happened. The blame should not be put on the home club until the circumstances warrant it and if the home club has taken reasonable steps and it must be very reasonable steps, then I don’t think they should be held responsible.” So what do players think of this situation and Article 55?

“People come to the game and pay their money,” says Paul Keegan. “It seems a bit of a hard way to do it. You should ban the fans that are doing it. When they are in the stands it is out of the players’ hands what they say and do. What we have to do is show our own team’s supporters what should be done. They should be shown that it is wrong, but at the end of the day what they say and do is not in our hands. You can ban fans from coming as well. Fans are important. They help you when you going through bad spells. They don’t just put you down and give you a hard time in a game. They help you, so not having them hurts the club as well. At the end of the day if the club has shown that they are doing everything in their power to stop it, then I don’t think it is fair to the club and players to take points off them.”

Motherwell’s players have no truck with racism either. “Well I know something has to be done,” says Motherwell player Kenny Connolly, “but sometimes you can’t hold the players responsible for what fans do.” Paul Keegan goes further. “People come to the game and pay their money. When they are in the stands it is out of the players’ hands what they say and do. What we have to do is show our own team’s supporters what should be done. They should be shown that it is wrong, but at the end of the day what they say and do is not in our hands.”

They were not aware of the amendments to Article 55, but were adamant that deducting points was not the answer, especially as it punished players who had worked hard to earn points. “At the end of the day if the club has shown that they are doing everything in their power to stop it, then I don’t think it is fair to the club and players to take points off them,” says Mr Keegan. “It seems a bit of a hard way to do it. You should ban the fans that are doing it.” Connolly agrees that points deductions are unfair “You can punish the clubs in other ways than taking points off them,” he says. “It can be money. It can be fans banned from the ground, but I don’t agree with taking points off them.”

They agreed that some of the fines that had been imposed for racist conduct in the past had been pathetic and were aware of the racism endured by Samuel Eto’o and Marc Zoro. They strongly condemned it. They accepted that racism in football had to be tackled, but remained convinced that there were other ways of doing that than taking points away from players and teams that had earned them. “If it is a small club the fines should be lower, but it is the complete opposite if it is a club like Manchester United or Real Madrid. They have the money and should pay higher amounts,” says Mr Connoly. “Fans are going to be attending. You can ban fans from coming as well.” Keegan explains that this is no soft option. “Fans are important. They help you when you going through bad spells,” he says. “They don’t just put you down and give you a hard time in a game. They help you, so not having them hurts the club as well.”

Keegan didn’t dispute that clubs had obligations to combat the racist conduct of its fans, but questioned what should be expected of them. “What can a club do?” he asks. “What can a club do apart from whoever gets caught doing it should be banned, but if people keep re-offending and its the same people then I totally agree, but there’s only so much that the police and club can do to keep people like that out. I think they should try to make sure that it is cut out as much as you possibly can, but there is only so much you can do. What should be done is people should be taught early not just in football, but from school that it should not be tolerated. It’s not allowed. It’s wrong, you know.” Connolly goes further. He proposes that fans should police themselves. “It was just a just a minority of fans, but after that incident that happened with Jason Scotland a lot of fans were upset by that. If supporters of whatever club do it, then the fans should be able to stop that themselves, rather than get the club involved. They should be able to let the police and stewards know and get the people escorted out of the ground.”

“Clubs must be held responsible where they can take reasonable steps to ensure that their fans do not make those kind of situations – racial situations – happen,” says Mr Rodger. “I’m saying that they should be held responsible, but where it’s impossible to identify the fans, they shouldn’t be, but they must take all reasonable steps once these fans are identified to ensure that those fans are held responsible by banning them. It could be away fans coming in and making racist chants and be unable to be identified. So the onus would seem to be on the home club to identify them and if you cannot identify them, then you are held responsible. It seems quite unfair.”

Despite the views of players like Connolly and Keegan, the SFA will insist on points being taken off teams if the club has not taken reasonable steps to prevent such incidents occurring from the beginning of the 2007-08 season. But Motherwell would not have been at risk if such a policy had been in place last season, as it took reasonable steps and did not try to shirk its responsibilities. “Clubs must be held responsible where they can take reasonable steps to ensure that their fans do not make those kind of situations – racial situations – happen,” says Mr Rodger. “I’m saying that they should be held responsible, but where it’s impossible to identify the fans, they shouldn’t be, but they must take all reasonable steps once these fans are identified to ensure that those fans are held responsible by banning them.”

Rodger objects to the current wording of Article 55, pointing out that despite doing everything in their power to identify those responsible that proved impossible. As the home club, Article 55 holds Motherwell responsible and liable to the same punishment as if their fans had been the culprits. “Away fans could be responsible. It would seem a little bit unfair that the blame is transferred onto the home club. The home club might not be responsible. It could be away fans coming in and making racist chants and be unable to be identified. So the onus would seem to be on the home club to identify them and if you cannot identify them, then you are held responsible. It seems quite unfair.”

He wants greater discretion to protect home clubs that deserve it. “I think that if the home club were seen to have taken all possible steps to identify who were to blame, whether it was home fans or away fans then I don’t think any blame should be put on the home club if they can’t identify the culprits. I think if your efforts were seen to be not just 100% but 110% to identify the culprits I think on that basis if you have done all you possibly could then I don’t that any blame should be put at the door of the home club.” So how did Motherwell’s efforts work in practice?

I attended Motherwell’s match against Kilmarnock at Fir Park Stadium on April 3^rd. Momo Sylla was in Kilmarnock’s team. Motherwell was by far the more ambitious team and tested Kilmarnock goalkeeper Graeme Smith a few times in the first half, but found the goal that would have settled them down elusive. Kilmarnock absorbed the pressure, creating little in attack. The travelling supporters’ mood was not improved when Garry Hay succumbed to injury with less than half an hour played. The crowd of less than four thousand saw Australian striker Scott McDonald, who had by then agreed a lucrative move to Celtic, demand a good save from Smith in the first five minutes. Smith repeated his heroics to Mark Reynolds’ effort from the resulting corner. Motherwell continued to have by far the better of the first half, but Smith proved equal to everything thrown at him. Apart from Smith only Steven Naismith troubled Motherwell.

Motherwell continued where they had left off in the first half, but profligacy in front of goal and quality keeping from Smith continued to keep them at bay. With almost an hour gone, Motherwell’s goalkeeper, also called Graeme Smith, had to be replaced by Colin Meldrum because he could not shake off the effects of a first half challenge from Naismith. Motherwell continued to press for the goal that they needed, but despite coming close they could not beat Smith. Meanwhile Naismith seemed like he was playing Motherwell on his own at times. His near perfect pass almost put Garry Wales through on goal, but a fine interception from Danny Murphy snuffed out the danger. It was Wales’ last contribution of sorts as Colin Nish replaced him with just over twenty minutes remaining.

McDonald still posed a danger, but his effort from Darren Smith’s cross was well-saved by the excellent Smith. Simon Ford had a rare chance for Kilmarnock, but his weak header from substitute William Gibson’s free-kick was easily saved by Meldrum, who had only just done well to keep Gibson out. It was beginning to look like it was destined to end scoreless. However, McDonald had not given up hope of adding to his tally. He failed to find the net, but his persistent appeals for corner earned him referee Kenny Clarke’s displeasure with less than five minutes remaining and he talked himself into Clarke’s book. Peter Leven evened up the cards shortly afterwards. Motherwell had dominated the match, having almost two thirds of the possession and firing more than twice as many shots as the visitors managed, but they would get nothing at all from the match. In injury time, Meldrum tipped Garry Locke’s effort over. Leven took the resulting corner and Colin Nish’s close-range header stole the points.

“In terms of prevention all clubs are obliged to have an anti-racism or anti-discriminatory policy, as part of their licencing conditions,” says Andy Mitchell. “I can only speak for Scotland. We have a club licencing system and a condition of getting a licence is that you must have an anti-discrimination policy, it must be printed on all season tickets and you must be shown to promote it, although there are different ways of promoting it, but certainly all clubs are obliged to have this policy in place and Motherwell are certainly one of those clubs which has a policy.”

There were no racist incidents to report. The closest to it was the inadvertent comments of a Kilmarnock supporter disgruntled at the poor performance of her team. “Link man,” she shouted at one of their players. “More like the missing link!” She then apologised to me, saying that she was not racist and that the comment was not directed at me. I assured her that I didn’t think it was and actually thought it quite a funny comment. I have no idea why she thought I would find it offensive or think that it was directed at me. Just before the end, she decided that she had seen as much as she could stand and walked out. Moments later Nish scored the injury-time winner.

It is clear that both Motherwell and the SFA have no truck with racism. Both have not shirked their responsibilities to deal with racism in football and neither should have faced the slightest risk of punishment over it. The Motherwell incident and the way it was dealt with by the SFA demonstrated clear flaws in the original wording of Article 55.⁴ Scotland and its football are serious about dealing with racism. The SFA recently implemented new policies to tackle the scourge of discrimination in football. But even before this the SFA had not been idle. It required clubs to have an anti-discrimination policy. “In terms of prevention all clubs are obliged to have an anti-racism or anti-discriminatory policy, as part of their licencing conditions,” says Andy Mitchell. “I can only speak for Scotland. We have a club-licencing system and a condition of getting a licence is that you must have an anti-discrimination policy, it must be printed on all season tickets and you must be shown to promote it, although there are different ways of promoting it, but certainly all clubs are obliged to have this policy in place and Motherwell are certainly one of those clubs which has a policy.” Motherwell’s anti-racism policy is also displayed on the club’s official website. This is not a racist club and the SFA is far from soft on racism