Why Liverpool owners' silence during racism row suggests they might not be here for the long haul

By David Maddock

Published 15:24 05/01/12

So many questions, so few answers. The Suarez affair - or debacle, to apply a more appropriate description - has raised such serious issues, yet few people seem prepared to address them.

Chief among those avoiding their responsibilities during the months of raging controversy, have been the owners of Liverpool Football Club, and, in particular, their chairman Tom Werner and principle owner, John Henry.

Between them, the pair have ultimate management responsibility for one of the highest profile, biggest reaching multi-national corporate businesses across the globe.

Let us get this straight, Liverpool FC is not a corner shop.

It is no longer a business restricted to customers who live within walking distance of L4, as much as I would personally still love to subscribe to that romantic notion.

Liverpool are up there alongside Coca Cola, Apple Inc and the BBC when it comes to their name, brand awareness and global reach.

And I can guarantee the executives of not one of those corporations would have allowed a situation to have developed over several agonising months that can have so damaged the integrity of their business.

Lord Ouseley, the highly respected former head of the Commission for Racial Equality, perhaps put it most succinctly this week when he suggested Liverpool as a global business have failed spectacularly in their duty to their worldwide stakeholders.

"In any other sector, if someone makes a claim of racially motivated or abusive behaviour (against an employee of your organisation), an employer has to investigate if they are competent because this may be damaging to the business," he wrote.

Quite clearly, the owners of Liverpool have failed in their duty to properly investigate such a serious claim against their organisation, and more pertinently, have failed to offer the moral leadership the position of their company as a world renowned leader demands.

As Lord Ouseley added: "Surely the new owners, with their experiences of equality and inclusion in the US, can see how their brand is being devalued, and if they sanction this sort of lack of professionalism and moral leadership, we may as well pack up and go home and forget about anti-racism."

Would Apple Inc have left themselves open to such claims, or the BBC? Of course not.

And let me add this question: Would the Boston Red Sox? I don't believe they would.

Yet the owners of that American sports franchise, Werner and Henry, have hidden behind a ridiculous notion of team spirit and closing ranks that seems only to apply to football, to justify their appalling lack of judgement in this case.

And let us get this straight, it is an appalling lack of judgement.

Liverpool defended Suarez vehemently, and repeatedly, aggressively, almost dementedly, attacked Patrice Evra and the FA, to the extent of entering slanderous territory because they believed his use of the word "negro" was not offensive in any way.

The repeated incendiary statements released in the name of their owners were appalling, but justified apparently, because their man was innocent.

Their explanation was that, in Suarez's native South America, it can be used as a term of endearment.

Which is true. South Americans can use the term in a friendly way when referring to people with black hair and dark skin, as the entire Argentina squad did when they sent a message of support to their team-mate Fernando Cacero, when they were pictured in front of a banner reading 'Vamos Negro'.

However, it is also true that in South America to refer to a person of African descent using the same term can still be considered racist.

Very racist.

South Americans with any sensitivity are aware that to use the phrase towards a person of African descent can be highly inadvisable, and should be avoided.

And Werner and Henry, being liberal Americans in touch with the subtleties of racial issues within sport - as their positions at the Red Sox demand - will be aware of that.

Werner works in the TV and film industries and is based in California, where there are sizable South American and African-American communities.

I would ask him this question: In California, if a South American referred to an African-American as 'negro' during a heated exchange, would he consider it offensive?

And I would ask him a further question: If one of his American companies had an employee accused of a serious offence that involved alleged racist taunts, would he allow his company to pursue the individual who made the accusation - and who has potentially been gravely insulted with a vehemence bordering on the slanderous?

As I said at the start of this column, many questions have been raised, and so few answers have been given - due in part to the refusal of Liverpool FC's American owners to open any sort of dialogue with their stakeholders through the media.

Liverpool have been damaged globally.

Two of the most senior figures at the club in England dismissed this suggestion when I made it this week, but it is true.

In Europe, outside the Spanish-speaking companies, and in the rest of the world, again outside the Spanish-speaking countries, there is a newly-formed suspicion of the club.

In Asia and Africa, where allegiances are not so tribal as they are in the north of England, many fans are openly questioning their support of the club, and that is damaging to the core business.

As Lord Ouseley concluded, when discussing the impact of the Suarez debacle on many millions of kids worldwide who play football every week: "I cannot believe that a club of Liverpool's stature, and with how it has previously led on matters of social injustice and inequality, can allow its integrity and credibility to be debased by such crass and ill-considered responses."

Which leads us to one final question of Messers Henry and Werner: How serious is your stewardship of Liverpool Football Club?

When they arrived as the saviours of Anfield, following the disastrous regime of Tom Hicks and George Gillett, they made no bones about their intentions.

They switched continents, and sports, they admitted, not because of their allegiance to Liverpool or football, but because they saw the bigger picture of a global franchise with a name that is one of the biggest and most respected within its field or any other.

They wanted to maintain that name and image, and develop it sensitively and carefully to put the club in the position its history and gravitas deserved.

Yet their conduct over the past few months, in preaching to the converted and playing to the gallery of insular fans (and in employing people with a similar approach), does not speak of a commitment to developing the Liverpool brand in a wider context, and making the club a truly great global business.

In allowing this mess to develop, in putting back the cause of anti-racism so violently and in firmly anchoring Liverpool Football Club in prehistoric practices that have no place in 21st century business, are they really committed to developing the club as they suggested in the long term, to rival the likes of Coca Cola or Apple Inc?

Or did they spot a short-term business opportunity to buy cheaply and sell swiftly, making a quick buck?

It may seem a harsh judgement, but their behaviour and subsequent silence only lends credence to such a theory.

***

Read David Maddock's exclusive Liverpool column every Wednesday on MirrorFootball.co.uk.

Fancy winning £3,000 for FREE this month? Play Mirror Football Streak for your chance to win cash prizes! Start predicting now!