FA verdict leaves cloud over Terry

As expected John Terry has been found guilty of misconduct by the Football Association — hardly a shock, as he had already admitted in court having a slanging match with Anton Ferdinand towards the end of that now notorious game at Loftus Road almost 12 months ago.

But Terry’s four-match ban and €275,000 fine are unlikely to be the end of the matter.

To start with, there’s the issue of what he’s been found guilty of. Obviously of racial abuse, at least according to much of the English media. That’s not quite right though.

After he was cleared in court of a “racially aggravated” public order offence, the FA charged Terry with “using abusive words... which included a reference to colour”. This isn’t the same as racial abuse and the FA’s slightly devious wording was aimed at getting round the fact no one heard what he said, and none of the expert lip-readers could be sure either.

He did use the word black though, as he also admitted in court. The question is context.

We will only know what the panel concluded when they publish their full findings, which will be some days at least. They seem to have accepted the evidence Terry gave in court — apparently he was not cross-examined during the hearing. After all the fuss, he has got off relatively lightly: a four-game ban is probably the minimum could be expected, in the light of the eight-game ban on Luis Suarez last season.

But it is the racist tag that will stick and most concern Terry and his lawyers.

Immediately after the verdict Herman Ouseley, chairman of English football’s anti-racism campaign Kick It Out, and one of the most prominent in calling for disciplinary action, told the BBC: “Surely no one should be accusing John Terry of being a racist, and no one has accused John Terry of being a racist.”

But that’s exactly how some headlines were describing the verdict last night. After being previously acquitted by a court of law of an offence that could have cost him his career, Terry now risks a permanent stain on his reputation.

The written verdict will be all-important in deciding if the case goes to appeal, first under the FA’s procedures and then possibly to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Switzerland. CAS does not have universal jurisdiction. For example FA rules specifically exclude CAS involvement where a dispute has been through its own arbitration procedures, as in the case of Carlos Tevez. That doesn’t apply in this case and the FA will be concerned that its behaviour could come under scrutiny, particularly as its own regulations state that court verdicts should take precedence in disciplinary hearings, unless there is “clear and convincing evidence” for a different approach.

You can easily understand why campaigners, the FA and the players union the PFA should take a strong line on racial issues. Racial abuse happens, both on and off the field; it is a blot on the game and on society. Yet it seems amazing an undignified spat at the end of a fractious local derby should still make waves like this.

Players are constantly seeking to gain an advantage against opponents, and that includes provoking them physically and verbally, from the dig in the ribs to observations about wives or girlfriends. Italy’s Marco Materazzi famously got Zinedine Zidane sent off in a World Cup final by make a remark about his sister. By coincidence a statue commemorating Zidane’s headbutt was unveiled in Paris this week. A monument to a moment of madness.

It would be nice to think Ferdinand and Terry could settle their differences in a similar manner. Don’t hold your breath.