[ad_1]
Two scenes from this sixth and last day of the Champions League preliminary round will be remembered. In both cases the ball only plays a minor role. And in both you don’t see much at first glance, because they show crowds of people under the pale spotlight of a stadium without spectators. In addition, it is vitally important that full visual and acoustic monitoring has long dictated the dramaturgy. Both scenes represent the emotional range of soccer. The eruption broke out in Madrid, when it finally became clear that the Gladbachers, who were following the endless stoppage time in the parallel match in Milan, 1,200 kilometers away, huddled around a miniscreen, had reached the eighth of final in the queen category. And the day before, in Paris, the turmoil surrounding an incident of racism that spontaneously sparked the duel between the French champion and Basaksehir Istanbul broke down after 13 minutes. For the chroniclers: The sequel the following night ended with 5: 1.
But this incident should not end with this result. Now it has to be publicly reworked where it belongs: in front of the legal authorities, in this case those of the European Football Union (Uefa). That requires the sensitivity of the subject. Most of those responsible are manifestly unanimous in condemning any kind of racism; in their later reactions, it was even the parties that clashed verbally in Paris.
Even if, despite the directional microphone and the cell phone camera, everything could not be clearly assigned, for the sports-historical record here again the details transmitted from the edge of the field: “The black over there. Look who he is. The black from there. It doesn’t work like that, “was from the Romanian. Listen to the referee team. This had been haunted by reactions from the Istanbul substitute bench, especially from assistant coach Pierre Webó of Cameroon. Which leads us to delve into the etymological investigation: was it called “negru” (Romanian: black)? Or “black”? Both are perceived by many as stigmatizing.
It is important that this debate take place. Better now, in the days of Corona, since almost everything that the actors expect to be heard through eavesdropping. This could, for example, lead to the referees being urged, in accordance with the UEFA order, to never identify those involved by skin color, but only by their back number and the name peeled off on the jersey, which should be a matter of course anyway. And also to equip the boisterous supervisory staff with bibs and bibs (with the exception of the head coach, whose name the referee should already know).
Ideally, however, Paris would remain the exemplary individual case on the big stage. Of course, a team has the option of leaving the field of play after informing the referee if, for example, the public insults them massively. A team leaving the pitch offers a big picture that deserves attention. However, if, as in Paris, the incident only affects those involved on the lawn, internal mediation procedures should also go into effect. A precise note in the match record, for example, on the basis of which the sports justice can subsequently punish severely. UEFA now has to review the acoustic protocol anyway, because the referees also complain about an imposition that is perceived as racist: “Romanians are gypsies”, they want to hear. It is unlikely that this, too, was adequately examined before the Paris ad hoc judgment was given in the cockpit wing.
