Erling Haaland protests Simon Hooper's decision to cut his initial call for an advantage with offensive aggression. Photo: Action Images via Reuters/Lee Smith
Erling Haaland, his veins bulging and his face wrinkled into a mask of apoplexy, unwittingly presented a picture that reflected football's problem with dissent. In the space of 24 hours, a photo of him screaming in the face of referee Simon Hooper has spawned a thousand memes, from a pastiche of Edvard Munch's The Scream to an imaginary piece of Dutch Renaissance art.
It's an image of gargoyle fury that, from a Premier League perspective, would have looked more at home in the early 2000s, along with the infamous shot of Roy Keane and Jaap Stam going toe-to-toe with Andy D'Urso. At the time, this scene caused almost universal outrage. It was considered monstrous that Keane, then on £52,000 a week, could harass and terrorize an official who had pocketed a meager £700 match fee with impunity.
Fast forward 23 years and we see history repeating itself with Haaland. Here's the highest paid player in English football shouting: 'Fuck off! To hell! Hooper, an official who, like most top-flight referees, will struggle to earn as much in a year as a Norwegian earns in a day. And what punishment will he suffer for this blatant intimidation? Zero. Although the Football Association accused Manchester City of failing to control its players, the man at the center of it all received neither a fine nor even the mildest rebuke.
Something is deeply wrong here. It's not just that Haaland expressed contempt for power by criticizing Hooper point-blank. That's because moments later he doubled down, tweeting “Wtf” – “What the hell” – to his six million followers. It is understood that the FA saw fit to be lenient as Haaland clearly did not question the integrity of the referee. But how much clearer should the evidence be? Haaland let Hooper know what he thought of him from about six inches away, then invited his army of online followers to join the group.
At a time when judges are under siege, this is a depressing sight. Worse, Haaland's evasion of any sanctions means that a repeat offense is likely to occur soon. This is the most controversial message the game has sent to dissenters this season. On the one hand, Howard Webb, head of Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL), has made it his mission to take the strongest possible line against abuse of referees. On the other hand, the FA reviewed the raw footage of Haaland's allegations against Hooper and decided he should not face any further action. Here are the promised repressions.
On the face of it, the FA's rules regarding post-match media commentary and social media activity are clear when it comes to an official topic. “If comments suggest bias, attack their integrity, are personally offensive, prolonged or particularly unfounded, this may result in a charge or formal warning,” it says. But the application of this dictate can be unsystematic. Virgil van Dijk was charged with breaking the rule after Liverpool's win over Newcastle in August when he called John Brooks' red card against him a “bloody joke” as he left the pitch. Why was one superstar player prosecuted and his opponent pardoned?
The situation gets murkier when you consider the case of Brighton's Lewis Dunk, who last week became the first player in 11 years to be sent off for swearing and insulting a referee. Amateur readers have established that Dunk did speak to Anthony Taylor in fluent Anglo-Saxon, but the purported content hardly went beyond Haaland's outburst at Hooper. Not for the first time in recent months, it seems that for City there is one rule and for everyone else another.
It is amazing that football continues to tolerate such tantrums. The freedom that Haaland and his fellow multimillionaires can berate and belittle would be unthinkable in any other sport. Rugby? Suffice it to say that when Chris Robshaw once dared to disagree with Nigel Owens at Twickenham, the Welshman spanked him with the director's “Christopher!” “Sorry, sir,” replied the punished England captain.
Of course, all this requires is a modicum of maturity: setting boundaries and automatically punishing anyone who crosses them. However, football kneels so pitifully at the altar of celebrity that an atmosphere of privilege is encouraged. That's why Haaland felt able to explode at Hooper with a froth of rage before feeding him to the crowd. This was a player who acted in the belief that such excesses would go unpunished. And indeed, a few hours later the FA proved him right.
In most areas of civilized society, senseless verbal abuse is accompanied not only by the threat of a fine, but also by criminal prosecution. You see it everywhere, from supermarket queues to airport security checks, these warnings about the dire consequences of mistreating staff. With the exception of football, standard codes of dignity and decency have been destroyed. Players wealthier than Croesus may strike in the reasonable belief that the authorities will do nothing to stop them.
There is little dispute that Hooper made a potentially significant error on Sunday, first taking advantage before blowing the whistle and denying Jack Grealish a one-on-one opportunity that could have produced a City winner. But in what world does that justify Haaland's obscene overreaction? It was interesting to listen to Pep Guardiola after that. “Who doesn’t make mistakes, either in football or in our lives?” he asked rhetorically.
Except he was referring to his own players, who only managed a 3-3 draw. He didn't mean the judges, those poor, abused figures held to a standard of infallibility that everyone else spares. “Fine,” Guardiola said of Haaland’s response. This should be anything but normal. The sight of Haaland exploiting the imbalance of power to humiliate the main referee of the match must be deeply abnormal. And yet, this is possible thanks to a game that gives the richest characters carte blanche for random gangster crimes. Football needs to grow for its own good.
Recent Comments