Why Doesn’t Justice In Soccer Work Like The Real World?

Real Madrid expressed “surprise” that UEFA decided to investigate Sergio Ramos and Xabi Alonso deliberately wasting time to get sent off and head into the knock-out phase with a clean slate. Actually, the only surprising part of the whole affair was that José Mourinho, Ramos, and Alonso would make it so stupidly obvious (if you haven’t seen their ridiculous time-wasting, here you go).

It’s not surprising in the least that UEFA looked into it, nor that the fines they imposed were utterly insignificant, nor that the one-game ban for Mourinho will apply for Real’s dead rubber against Auxerre this week. It was a toothless punishment that played right into the hands of the Madrid manager -- he got exactly what he wanted with a wholly meaningless sanction.

As poorly thought-out as UEFA’s initial proceedings were, the fact that the punishments were reduced on appeal further boggles the mind. There was almost certainly no new evidence that was brought to UEFA’s attention, and yet the already pathetic penalties meted out to Mourinho, Ramos, Alonso, Jerzy Dudek, and Iker Casillas were reduced even more.

This case is just one example of the very strange and lamentable propensity on the part of football’s disciplinary authorities to reduce bans or fines on appeal. Occasionally, a club or individual is found to have engaged in a “frivolous” appeal and is given a longer ban, but this is very rare. On the contrary, appeals almost always result in either no change from the original decision, or, usually, a more lenient sanction.

In this environment, it’s obvious that club will appeal whenever possible -- the potential benefits are high, the costs fairly low, and the chance of success is good. Appeals are almost always an automatic sentence reducer, which makes a joke of the entire disciplinary system. Not only are initial punishments laughable (as in this case), but the final ones are usually substantially more feeble.

The results of the appeals process are pathetic, but almost as bad is the complete uselessness of suspended bans. Didier Drogba received a two-match suspended ban on top of his three-game ban (which had been reduced from four matches on appeal) after the semifinal against Barcelona in 2009, and was banned for two matches (applied in this season’s Champions League) after his stamp on Thiago Motta in Chelsea’s game against Inter last season.

In spite of Drogba’s track record of poor discipline in crunch time (he’s been sent off in Chelsea’s last Champions League game in each of the last three seasons), the two-game suspended ban was not added to the two-match ban he received after his most recent egregious infraction. Why? According to UEFA, the suspended ban only related to interaction with officials, not violent conduct, which was the offence that result in this season’s ban. Essentially, as long as players keep breaking the rules in different ways, suspended bans won’t be applied. Kick someone, then spit on an official, then deny a clear goalscoring opportunity -- no suspended ban for you.

The most likely reason that this system is so farcical is that it isn’t transparent. There’s no open court like justice in the real world, and no accountability on either side. Soccer is a fun diversion for most people, but that doesn’t mean that those who make it their living should be allowed to exist in an alternate reality without proper rules and discipline.