News of Chelsea considering an appeal against the bans imposed on Didier Drogba and Jose Bosingwa doesn’t come as much of a surprise, but accompanied by the wider issues surrounding the matter it raises further questions over certain aspects of the integrity of the game at present.
At a time when a proposed transfer fee of £80 million for Cristiano Ronaldo is driving the market up to such an extent that Inter are holding out for close to £76m for Zlatan Ibrahimovic and Spurs £10m for Didier Zokora, there is obviously a clarity of perspective that is lacking in the football world.
That seems to have transcended itself to the punishment and appeals level, with Wednesday’s news of the Chelsea duo’s bans.
If Chelsea do appeal Drogba’s six-game ban (with two games suspended) and Bosingwa’s four-game prohibition with just one suspended match, it would be a laughable response to an even more comical sanction. The fact Chelsea are yet to issue an application – they have one more day in which to do so – signals that sense may have prevailed at Stamford Bridge.
So the focus returns to the actual severity of the ban. Forget the suspended games, Drogba has been let off lightly with four. Yes, Chelsea will more than likely feel the full force of his absence in the early stages of next season’s Champions League, but on an individual level he can feel very lucky to have escaped with such a light sentence. The same goes for Bosingwa.
Watching Drogba’s behaviour towards Tom Henning Ovrebo was hard to swallow for anyone with a modicum of taste or decency, ditto Bosingwa’s ‘thief’ comment in the days that followed the defeat to Barcelona. Chelsea and their players had every right to feel aggrieved at the way the Norwegian handled the game, but as has been endlessly pontificated upon nothing excuses the reaction that was forthcoming.
Ronnie Wallwork was handed a worldwide life ban for allegedly assaulting Belgian referee Amand Ancion in 1999, a ban which was reduced on appeal by Fifa to eventually apply for just four months inside Belgium. Similarly, Chelsea youngster Slobodan Rajkovic – loaned again this week to FC Twente for another season – was banned from all football for a year after being accused of spitting at referee Abdullah Al Hilali in last year’s Olympics. His penalty was also watered down on appeal and restricted to a veto solely on international appearances for 12 months by Fifa.
Both examples are varying degrees of offence, but highlight the issue of a lack of exemplary regard for officials. Was Drogba’s tirade against Ovrebo as bad as either of these? Probably not. The revulsion caused was not of a much lesser degree however, and this is what sticks.
If Fifa and Uefa are prepared to reduce the penalties they impose so easily – as in the cases of Wallwork and Rajkovic – or mete out such weak punishments as those given to both Drogba and Bosingwa, why would anyone be deterred?
Did Drogba’s and Bosingwa’s Chelsea-orchestrated, post-haste apologies spare them greater punishment? Maybe.
Time for a few hypothetical ifs to round off on.
If both players remain at Chelsea this summer, and if The Blues find themselves in a similarly unfair position of being dumped out of the latter stages of the Champions League by the same means, will Drogba, Bosingwa, or anyone else for that matter not repeat what happened? I doubt it.