Calacus Weekly Hit & Miss – Tottenham Hotspur & Kurt Zouma
Every week we look at the best and worst communicators in the sports world from the previous week.
HIT – TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR
Much has been done to combat racism and homophobia in sport in recent years.
We have seen players taking the knee before matches and the rainbow laces campaign promoting solidarity among the football family.
But antisemitism seems to have been overlooked and is still prevalent in many forms throughout the game.
In Holland, the rivalry between Feyenoord and Ajax, whose fans are known to identify as the Super Joden, the Super Jews, is a maelstrom for anti-Jewish sentiments.
When fan favourite and club captain Steven Berghuis, left Feyenoord for Ajax, graffiti in the city portrayed him wearing a concentration camp striped uniform and a yellow star. ‘Jews always run away,’ it read.
In Germany, Bundesliga giants Borussia Dortmund took significant action after far-right supporter groups targeted the club's fans and ultra groups who take a largely anti-racist stance.
As a result, Dortmund were among the first German clubs to adopt the working definition of antisemitism from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).
In England, as of 2019, there had only been 12 Jewish players in the history of the Premier League, yet statistics from football's anti-racism campaign Kick It Out showed 10 per cent of all discrimination reports during the 2017-18 season related to antisemitism.
Kick It Out also released a training guide for match day stewards to help improve awareness of antisemitic behaviour – and the role they and their club play in tackling it – with the aim of creating a more inclusive match day experience for all supporters.
The Football Association has also adopted the IHRA definition, particularly relevant after Jewish charity, the Community Security Trust, said that antisemitic hate incidents recorded in the UK had reached a record high.
Perhaps the club challenged the most by antisemitism is Tottenham Hotspur.
Located close to one of London’s most established Orthodox Jewish communities, some of the club’s fans have used the word ‘Yid’ since the 1970s as a term of endearment and to deflect antisemitic abuse.
In 2019 the World Jewish Congress and Board of Deputies of British Jews urged the club to act over the continued use of the word by their supporters, asking them to "take a stand".
The situation escalated a couple of years ago when the club criticised the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) after it expanded its definition of the word “Yid” to include a “supporter of or player for” the football club.
The OED included the word in its list of entries, along with the related term ‘Yiddo’ and said that as well as racist connotations, the words could refer to “a supporter of or player for Tottenham Hotspur football club (traditionally associated with the Jewish community in north and east London).”
Tottenham’s response was firm: “As a club we have never accommodated the use of the Y-word on any club channels or in club stores and have always been clear that our fans (both Jewish and gentile) have never used the term with any intent to cause offence.
“We find the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of the word misleading given it fails to distinguish context, and welcome their clarification.”
Sentiment is one thing, but Tottenham have gone further, conducting in-depth research as the foundation for their latest initiative to "move on" from using the Y-word.
The review, which began in 2019, received more than 23,000 responses and confirmed a "growing desire" among fans to stop the use of the word, with 94% acknowledging it could be racist towards Jewish people.
The club’s report said: “We are living in times of heightened awareness of cultural appropriation and sensitivities. It is therefore crucial to the values of our Club and our fans that we are even more mindful of the controversial nature of this term.
“Towards the end of 2019 we commenced the first stage of the consultation with fans and received more than 23,000 responses, with 94 per cent acknowledging the Y-word can be considered a racist term against a Jewish person.
Our supporters' use of the Y-word was initially taken as a positive step to deflect antisemitic abuse that they were subjected to at matches more than 40 years ago from opposition fans, who faced no sanctions for their actions.
The term continues to be used up to the present day by some of our supporters. We have always maintained that our fans have never used it with any deliberate attempt to offend.
Indeed, among the reasons some fans choose to continue to chant the term now is to show unity and support for the team, as well as each other, as a defence mechanism against antisemitic abuse that still exists and also as a way to identify as a Spurs fan.
“As a Club, we always strive to create a welcoming environment that embraces all our fans so that every one of our supporters can feel included in the matchday experience.
“It is clear the use of this term does not always make this possible, regardless of context and intention, and that there is a growing desire and acknowledgment from supporters that the Y-word should be used less or stop being used altogether.
“We recognise how these members of our fanbase feel and we also believe it is time to move on from associating this term with our Club.
“An increasing number of our fans now wish to see positive change again with the reduction of its use, something we welcome and shall look to support.”
The club have also shared the results of their report and have launched a 'WhY Word online hub' providing supporters with information on why the word causes offence.
The issue of the Y-word has been debated for so many years now, but Tottenham have to be applauded for engaging with the fans rather than simply dictating to them.
This collaborative effort is unlikely to see the word being eradicated from chants overnight – and according to Sky Sports, home fans started using the chant within five minutes of their 2-0 home defeat to Wolverhampton Wanderers – but the reasoned approach certainly draws a line in the sand as Tottenham seek to move on from the term positively.
MISS - KURT ZOUMA
The Premier League and the RSPCA do not often cross paths.
Yet that is exactly what happened this week, when West Ham United and France star Kurt Zouma was seen kicking and slapping his pet cat, in disturbing footage filmed by his brother, Dagenham and Redbridge footballer, Yoan.
The shocking video was voluntarily posted on Snapchat on Sunday afternoon, a day after Zouma’s West Ham side narrowly avoided being knocked out of the FA Cup by sixth tier Kidderminster Harriers.
The video was captioned ‘sa commence’ – which means ‘it is starting’ in French – and was accompanied by numerous laughing face emojis.
Appalled animal lovers joined forces to launch a petition calling on Zouma to be prosecuted for animal cruelty, which has now over 165,000 signatures.
The RSPCA said: “This is a very upsetting video. It’s never acceptable to kick, hit or slap an animal, for punishment or otherwise.”
Animal welfare charity, Cats Protection, said: “Kicking, hitting and slapping cats or any other animal is not only illegal but completely unacceptable in today’s society. Cats are sentient beings that experience pain and fear just like any other species.
“Footballers are in the privileged position of being role models to people across the world, making this case all the more distressing. Anyone with an influential position in public life should be held to the highest standards, and it is important that a clear message is sent that animal cruelty will not be tolerated at any level.”
In a short statement, West Ham condemned the defender, saying: “West Ham United unreservedly condemns the actions of our player, Kurt Zouma, in the video that has circulated.
“We have spoken to Kurt and will be dealing with the matter internally, but we would like to make it clear that we in no way condone cruelty towards animals.”
However, less than 24 hours after the video surfaced, manager David Moyes was widely criticised for his decision to start Zouma – who was met by a chorus of boos from both sets of fans – in West Ham’s 1-0 Premier League victory against Watford.
Moyes defended his decision, and when asked about why he had picked him, said it was because Zouma is one of West Ham’s better players.
The club responded by issuing the Frenchman with the maximum permitted fine they are permitted to hand out, estimated to be roughly £250,000.
The Hammers later released another club statement, which read: “West Ham United can confirm that the Club is supporting an RSPCA investigation into the actions of Kurt Zouma in the video circulated online this week.
“Kurt and the Club are co-operating fully with the investigation and the player has willingly complied with the steps taken in the initial stage of the process, including delivering his family’s two cats to the RSPCA for assessment. Kurt is extremely remorseful and, like everyone at the Club, fully understands the depth of feeling surrounding the incident and the need for action to be taken.
“Separate to the RSPCA’s investigation and pending further sanction once the outcome of that process is determined, West Ham United can confirm that Kurt Zouma has been fined the maximum amount possible following his actions in the video that circulated. The player has immediately accepted the fine, which both he and the Club agreed will be donated to animal welfare charities.
“West Ham United would like to reiterate our condemnation of Kurt’s actions and make it clear that the matter continues to be handled with the utmost seriousness. However, we believe it is now important to allow the RSPCA to conduct their investigation in a fair and thorough manner, and will be making no further comment at this stage.”
This was not enough for two of West Ham’s sponsors, however, who have since suspended their ties with the club in response to the ‘tone deaf’ judgment to field the player.
Experience Kissimmee – West Ham’s destination partner – announced: “Experience Kissimmee announced today that it has ended its sponsorship of West Ham United Football Club."
Vitality – the club’s wellness partner – stated: "We were very distressed by the video we have seen of Kurt Zouma. At Vitality, we condemn animal cruelty and violence of any kind.
"We are hugely disappointed by the judgement subsequently shown by the club in response to this incident. We are suspending our sponsorship of West Ham with immediate effect."
Adidas, meanwhile, also ended their boot sponsorship deal with Zouma.
A statement from the German sportswear giants said: "We have concluded our investigation and can confirm Kurt Zouma is no longer an adidas contracted athlete."
Zouma himself eventually issued an apology in a statement just before the Watford game.
He said: “I want to apologise for my actions. There are no excuses for my behaviour, which I sincerely regret.
“I also want to say how deeply sorry I am to anyone who was upset by the video. I would like to assure everyone that our two cats are perfectly fine and healthy.
“They are loved and cherished by our entire family, and this behaviour was an isolated incident that will not happen again.”
West Ham clearly fell well short in their response to the incident and, as Zouma’s employers, they had a responsibility to set an example.
The decision to play Zouma against Watford was a clear indication that disciplinary action was secondary to his value on the pitch and it also increased the focus on Zouma himself.
West Ham should have taken stronger action, dropping Zouma from the first team squad – something that would have sent out a clear message that they understood the wider ramifications of his actions – and which would also have affected the player in a way that a fine could not.
The club could also have ensured that Zouma underwent an immediate education programme with the RSPCA – particularly if he had enforced time off – to send a clear message that animal abuse is unacceptable, whoever you are.