Spurs told Rodrigo Bentancur appeal ‘overlooked’ wider offence comments caused | OneFootball

Tottenham’s challenge against a seven-match ban imposed on midfielder Rodrigo Bentancur “overlooked” the offence his comment about team-mate Son Heung-min had caused to the wider South Korean community, the appeal board hearing his case said.

Bentancur made a discriminatory comment about Son during an interview given in his home country Uruguay in June.

He was subsequently charged by the Football Association and was given the suspension by an independent commission on November 18. Two days later Spurs indicated they would appeal against the length of the ban, describing it as “excessive”.

However, the FA announced on Monday the appeal had been dismissed.

The appeal board’s written reasons were published on Friday and revealed Spurs’ barrister Jim Sturman had highlighted the player’s apology to Son, and Son’s acceptance of that apology.

“We accept that this is a relevant mitigating factor,” the appeal board wrote.

“But the remark was also offensive to the whole South Korean community and beyond that community. It seems that this element has been overlooked.”

On Monday anti-discrimination charity Kick It Out said it had received more reports about Tottenham’s decision to appeal against the sanction than it did over the original incident.

“Many of the reports from the east and south-east Asian community and beyond told us how angry and disappointed they were with the club’s actions and how it extended the pain for those who were affected by the original incident,” a Kick It Out statement said.

Spurs also argued Bentancur should have been given a lighter sanction because the comment was “naive”, an “ill-judged joke”, was not premeditated and showed no hostility towards Son.

The standard minimum range for an aggravated breach of FA Rule E3 is a ban of between six and 12 matches.

The appeal board agreed with the original commission’s reasoning for imposing a seven-match ban – that it was at the “lower end” of the sanctioning range but that it was also possible to envisage less serious cases.

Sturman also argued that if Bentancur’s words had been written rather than spoken, the offence would have fallen squarely within the exceptions to the standard minimum range and could therefore have attracted a ban of less than six matches.

A commission can impose a sanction below the standard minimum where an offence is in writing only or via the use of a communication device, and where the commission believes there was no genuine intent to be discriminatory or offensive in any way and that the person could not reasonably have known that any such offence would be caused.

The appeal board said Sturman’s point was irrelevant, because the comment had not been made in writing.

The appeal board added a postscript to its written reasons to suggest the “in writing only or via the use of a communication device” exception to the standard minimum sanctions range should be reviewed given the potential for social media posts to gain large international exposure.

Bentancur’s comment came in a light-hearted interview with Uruguayan journalist Rafa Cotelo which was subsequently posted on YouTube.

Asked if a shirt being held up to Bentancur’s face by his daughter could belong to Son, Bentancur said: “Or one of Sonny’s cousins as they all look more or less the same.”

Bentancur apologised via social media and in person to his team-mate.

Son wrote on Instagram in the summer: “We’re past this, we’re united and we will be back together in pre-season to fight for our club as one.”