Racism in sport.
Racism is a hot topic. Racism in sports no less so. It needs to be talked about, discussed, not just seen in the perspective of ethnic nationalism or, conversely, of unbridled multiculturalism, but understood. Simply to orient oneself in it and to use this knowledge for the cultivation of society. Today's globalised world offers diverse racial mixtures even in the most conservative countries and regions. Historically, the foundations for these cocktails and mixtures were laid by the trade in human beings, i.e. their movement from their original place to a new place, which only began to recede in the nineteenth century. This was followed by a boom in travel in search of a better livelihood. The process of population migration for economic, humanitarian, security and other reasons, culminating at the beginning of the third millennium, was a major contributor to the final breakthrough. All this has led to an average of 3-5 per cent of the world's population living in a country other than where they were born. Of these emigrants/immigrants, nine-tenths are voluntary. This trend seems set to continue and is unstoppable. The objective fact that people of different skin colours coexist implies certain difficulties that must be addressed by society. And among all of them, some loom, not the most important, but interesting ones.
The unsupported, current, media-significant case of UEFA's decision to severely punish a Czech footballer for allegedly verbally assaulting an opposing player of a different skin colour and using a racist slur in the process is emblematic. This is particularly so in that the issue of racism is viewed fundamentally differently in different parts of Europe. A Finn, of Sierra Leonean origin, living in the UK, playing football for an English big club, is perhaps a typical representative of the fact that there is an inalienable right to freedom of movement under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). A concomitant of the consumption of this type of freedom must necessarily be the right to a safe residence with all the guarantees that constitute the legislative framework of the country concerned. Among these, protection from racially motivated attacks is certainly one of them. These circumstances are perceived more strongly west of our borders, even to the point of reverse discrimination. In our own countries, on the other hand, the issue of racism has traditionally been communicated with reluctance, shame and distrust. It is not surprising, then, that when these two different understandings collide, they clash. The sad result is escalating verbal attacks, mutual attacks via social networks, and the tragicomic climax is the clumsy engagement of the Chancellor in the form of the publication of a populist text full of platitudes and clichés. It is almost understandable that there is no interest on either side in approximating positions, as the game is played for supporters, supporters, fans and voters. Money, power and opportunity are at stake. And the substance is somewhat lost in all of this. Yes, it should be reprehensible for anyone to indiscriminately, by and large, insult someone unsportingly. I also understand the need for swift and exemplary punishment in order to toe the line of rejecting any racially motivated conflict in a football environment. I would just like to hear or read the accompanying report or reasoning behind the verdict. Whether I understand correctly that this is to prevent even the slightest hint of breaking the anti-racist line systemically enforced by supranational and national football organisations. That it is simply not possible to allow a trick to exist and be used with impunity, for example in the form of a covered mouth, which does not allow the author to be prosecuted and penalised. For the higher interest is to understand football as a game that brings nations and people together through an international language of friendship, understanding and appreciation.
"