The hypocrisy of the PFA

The Professional Football Association (PFA) has been unequivocal in its condemnation of American-comedian Reginald D. Hunter. The stand-up comic was asked to host the PFA Player of the Year Awards and during the award ceremony, Hunter used the ‘N’ word ten times in a minute. The PFA claimed that they made it ‘clear’ to him that swearing and racist references were not allowed:

We were totally dismayed that the performance was the exact opposite of our requirement.”

The PFA are now demanding that Hunter pay back the fee, paid to him for the performance.

The PFA’s ‘selective outrage’ would be comical if it weren’t so serious. Whilst Hunter’s ironic use of the ‘N’ word in many circles has been condemned, the PFA booked a comedian who is well known for his use of the ‘N’ word. They claim that they made it clear to him before the performance that no racist references were allowed, however that indicates that they knew of his use of such material.

Some might argue that Hunter was only doing what the PFA have for so long failed to do - address the issue of race. Maybe it is this, not the word used by Hunter that makes the PFA so uncomfortable. Yes, let’s have a black man entertain at the awards ceremony, but let’s not get onto the issue of race please, your mere presence is enough for us thanks.

We don't want you offending our members, members that include John Terry and Luis Suarez. That would be considered just plain wrong. Further still, the inclusion of Luis Suarez for the esteemed title of PFA’s Team of the Year, is another example of how their claims ring hollow.

What we actually have here is a PFA with a poor track record of dealing with racial abuse of black players condemning a black comedian who (whether or not you agree with his approach) tackles issues of racism head on.

Let’s look at the PFA response on incidents where derogatory terms for a black person have been used in a public arena: When Suarez, and Terry were found guilty by the FA of racial abuse what did the PFA do? Did they throw them out of the union? No. Did they suspend them? No. Maybe they were afraid they would be asked to refund the players fees if so...?

When Regional D. Hunter uses similar derogatory terms, and clearly not in context as used by Terry & Suarez, there is outrage, disgust and a demand for financial penalty.

Could there be anything more ironic in football?

The issue here is not what Hunter said, but what the PFA have regularly failed to do - address racism in football. They may finally have issued a six point plan. However, this is after two very high profile incidents. These are not the first incidents, just ones that have made the front pages of newspapers.

And that is the real issue here, that the PFA is reactive, not proactive. A body that is the size and prestige that they themselves claim, "the world’s longest established professional sportsperson’s union" have had ample opportunity to deal with racism in football. Yet, they've done nothing until the issue is impossible to ignore.

Their actions this week in response to Hunter's act only further demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of issues of race within the PFA. It is a sad indictment of the PFA that they are vocal with outrage when a black person raises the subject of racism, yet less so when black players are subjected to racism.

Ian Tomkins and Usman Butt