FA Right To Charge John Terry

One of the issues is a different standard of proof being applied by the criminal courts as opposed to the FA (and indeed other none criminal hearings and tribunals).

The criminal law standard is 'beyond reasonable doubt' whilst the FA use 'on the balance of probabilities'.

Whilst I can not remember the exact wording used by the chief magistrate and have not looked it up, Terry had admitted using the offensive words and the magistrate concluded in his summing up that whilst the explanation given by Terry did not sound plausible, it was 'possible', therefore the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

I can remember thinking at the time that, by what he said in summing up, as far as he was concerned the magistrate believed Terry to be guilty on the balance of probabilities, but that the case had not been proved to the criminal standard.

The FA are almost certain to make a c*ck up of the proceedings in any case!

Many thanks for the great explanations as to why the FA has decided to charge Terry with the offence. I do think in this instance, we will see a guilty as charged verdict, with John Terry being banned for a number of matches, plus receive a fine of some description.

ALLEGEDLY

probably,still he can pop round to wayne bridges ex and see if she needs servicing
he really is an unsavoury character,who has got away with too much up to now,but saying that,why oh why has this all dragged on so long,it could of been sorted out long ago

Says a lot that the only people found to be defending him publicly are the BNP, though that's 0not especially surprising considering this is Chelsea we're talking about

You can only deduce that football hands out fines on the player's ability to pay. Clubs certainly do that as we often hear about so-and-so being fined a week's wages or a fortnight's wages. Consequently we have apparent absurdities such as being fined half-a-million pounds for missing a couple of training sessions or buggering off to Buenos Aires without telling the gaffer.

That's the world of football rather than the real world. That makes it fruitless making comparisons with fines levied through the criminal justice system. It's not comparing like with like.

But, of course, if you were a Torquay player, it wouldn't be £500,000 or whatever payment John Terry will barely notice making. Instead it would be a much smaller amount which, of course, may actually damage the individual. If you're on £500 a week you're certainly going to notice missing a thousand quid. That makes the "week's wages" definition of the ability to pay rather daft.

I suspect the clubs and authorities are at their wits ends about how to punish the really high earners and, just as importantly, carry through meaningful punishment. Remember there's a fair chance that individuals such as Terry can afford better legal advice than the FA. I know it's tempting to ask if somebody could be hired to break Terry's legs. That could be defined as meaningful punishment in some people's eyes. But, on reflection, I guess we need to be more liberally-minded and progressive than that. Personally I wouldn't have fined Terry a penny but I would have suspended him for as long as I had the power. And, ideally, a bit more too. Equally, if it's a club, forget the fine just take the points off them. But it may not be that simple of course.

Compared to other types of work, it's an interesting system whereby footballers get fined either by their employer or by a governing body. How many of us, for example, are liable for being fined at work? Not many I would suggest. Instead we can be fired, suspended, debarred from practising or censured in some other way that might not do us too many favours in the long-run.

By contrast football doesn't really work in that way. Naughty players are rarely sacked, especially if their value to the team is high. Likewise the occasional outbreak of ill-discipline may not affect a player's prospects in the long-run. Some club will always want him if he's any good. Governing bodies can suspend players but clubs are reluctant to do so because it's potentially self-damaging. So it's an almost medieval system of fines whether you racially abuse another player or turn up for training with a bad haircut.

The other issue with John Terry is the length of time it has taken to consider his case and make a decision.

I guess that, had the incident taken place on a Saturday with the verdict and punishment decided on the Monday, any reaction would have been different to what it is now after such a prolonged wait. What may have been seen a swift and fair decision within 48 hours may now be regarded now as both lenient and as a damp squib. That's because we've had time to become pumped up which, of course, is irrelevant and should be disregarded. In fairness to the FA they would have had to put the aftermath out of their minds and issue a punishment that would have been the same irrespective of the timescale. Four matches may seem inconsequential after all the ballyhoo but it may have been seen in a different light had the verdict been made immediately. Yet I remain convinced that this is a far more serious offence than some of the apologists would suggest. I'm just rather sorry that there are those in society who disregard the seriousness of racial abuse and see if as no more than a freedom of speech issue. Shame on them.