So I watched England’s World Cup qualifier against Andorra last night. It was an expected and unremarkable 5-0 win for the Euro 2020 finalists. The match, however, was significant for other reasons. On Friday afternoon, the broadcasting gantry was engulfed in flames and the match was under threat of being cancelled. The Andorran emergency services managed to control the fire and the match went ahead on what was a half-charred artificial pitch.
Astonishingly, the match going ahead despite a fireball in the stadium was not the most remarkable thing about last night. It was that the referee was a woman. Oh, and the assistant referees, and the Video Assistant Referee – all women. Social media’s XY chromosomes lost their minds as soon as the news broke. The main assumption, insinuation, accusation was that this was just FIFA “ticking boxes”. I’m sure you know what that means. But I’ll explain anyway.
Almost every commenter on social media – all male – decided, without any supporting information, that FIFA had appointed an all female officiating team for this match just to please the “lefty liberals” that apparently run today’s social media-driven world – the “liberandus” as they are known in our great nation. That is to say, FIFA were just “ticking a box” showing the world that they were as woke as the average young person on social media. This bit is somewhat justified. FIFA’s dealings with diversity are symbolic at best. Criticising FIFA is almost always fair; but, why such a visceral reaction to the female referees?
Before going into the nub of the matter let us consider a few things. First of all, the so-called record breaking night for Kateryna Monzul, along with Maryna Striletska and Svitlana Grushko – the on-field refereeing team from Ukraine – was that she was taking charge of her first men’s England game. She has been a FIFA referee for 16 years, has refereed in the Women’s Euros and the Women’s World Cup. More importantly, according to Goal, “She became the first female referee in the top-flight of men's football in Ukraine when she started working in the Premier League in 2016. In January 2020, she won the award for the UPL's best referee.” Indeed, she had already become the first female referee for a men’s international match last year and has also refereed a World Cup qualifier earlier this year. But, England, ooooh, big country, no?
What makes England so special? Other than the nation’s claim to have invented the game and its Premier League, largely dominated by foreign players and managers, not much. (Obviously this is in terms of football, fellow anglophiles need not feel aggrieved.) The national team is coached by a manager who is terrified of making substitutions because when he does make them they are almost always disastrous. He has only one tactical idea and as soon as that falls apart so does he. Individual brilliance can only take you so far. For some reason, he has consistently ignored the best set piece taker England has produced since David Beckham in James Ward-Prowse and only selected him for this match because another midfielder got injured. John Stones has not yet played a single match for his club. Jadon Sancho, by the appraisal of the very man who selected him for the national team, is not playing well enough to deserve it.
Now let us look at the conduct of the players. Kieran Trippier, captaining England, did not shake hands with the officials after the toss. There was a shameless display of entitlement from the young English players as usual – expecting fouls, not expecting to be booked for their own peevishness, deliberately wanting to humiliate the Andorrans in what seems to me to be a continued typical colonial mentality. Andorra’s oldest player is 41-year-old. Ildefons Lima could barely turn around with the play never mind keep up with the youthful English players. He came on in place of an injured youngster at around the half hour mark and himself collapsed on his tired legs just beyond the hour. A lot of the players were highly dismissive of the referee at the beginning and soon realised that was a mistake. While some of the yellow cards were slightly harsh, unnecessary and entitled peevishness should be punished on the football pitch. The patronising smiles some of the players directed at the referee deserved punches.
But coming back to the initial reaction on social media – why did le people assume that FIFA were simply “ticking boxes”? Had they seen Monzul referee before? Had they made an informed judgement based on her previous performances? No, they had judged simply because she was a woman. The increased scrutiny and the obnoxious comments both found their sources in the femaleness of the referee. Those of us who watch football come across new referees almost every week, especially when watching pan-European competitions. All of these are men and they are often incredibly poor at their jobs. The one most consistent match official who does tend to get most decisions correct is Sian Massey-Ellis – an assistant referee (linesperson) – who is the only woman currently operating at the highest level of club football.
Let’s face it; the job of the referee is not an envious one. A fairly thick skin is necessary to survive the abuse. However, most male referees do not have their abilities questioned as soon as they are named as officials for a match. As soon as a woman gets appointed, immediately the questions are asked – and the question that is most often asked is: “Is she qualified or are they just filling a reservation?”
OH NO! I’ve said the R-word. This could be the point where I will definitely lose some of my scanty readership. Ah well, I shall plough on regardless. Have you ever wondered about whom you ask the question of merit? Do you ever doubt the merit of those around you? Or do you find yourself only asking when it somebody ‘other’? When we were in school, we were told to always stay away from the “bad” boys and girls. Think back and try to recall how many Brahmins fell into that category. Indeed, ask yourself this, how many girls were given the courtesy of being called “bad”? Most of them went up to the higher levels of “shameless”, “slutty” and even “sly”. Boys were allowed to be what is still referred to as “naughty” in school. Girls, however, could be so if they were willing to give up their so called “honour”.
Now, did you remember a Brahmin “bad boy”? If not, it wouldn’t surprise me. If yes, did you find yourself being sort of drawn to him and wanting to emulate him even though you knew it would be wrong? That is how easily hierarchies are established in society. Since, in school, the bad boys were non-UC and the UC bad boys were really just a little cool, by the time you get to college it is ingrained in your head that non-UC boys are automatically “bad” and UC boys, even if they are “bad”, are really just unlucky or, worse, unjustly treated.
The girls, on the other hand, have already established their own hierarchy running along much of the same lines with the added caveat of physical appearance. Who has the fairer skin? Who has the better hair? Oooh! She has lice! (Disclaimer: Lice is definitely bad. It is just not an indicator of a person’s value.) At the same time, the boys see the girls struggling with their studies because they are either not being properly helped and encouraged or having too much pressure heaped on them. They don’t see the pressure, the hormonal changes, the new (traumatic) experience of period pains and, by the time they are 16, the teasing mentions of marriage. Hence, when the so-called “good boys” of school see that the colleges they wished to stride into would not let them in because there are reservations for SCs, STs and, in some institutions, for girls, they lose their minds. They start to ask whether these “others” who are not like them, who they knew were “bad”, deserve to be able to study in such hallowed halls.
The questions are never asked of their friends who have always been mediocre. Instead, the point made is if there was no reservation, these kids would have got in as well. These kids who for generations have not faced constant social discrimination, have not had to constantly prove their worth to others, have almost never been seen as “bad” feel that they are entitled to a place in higher education simply because they got marks. I may only have a few years of experience in academia but let me tell you definitively: marks ≠ merit. We just don’t have a better mechanism for determining who is more deserving of a place in higher education.
But since exams and marks are all we’ve got, just as with golf, the better players, the more privileged students, should rightly have a handicap in order to level the playing field for all involved. The thing is, if one observes carefully, referees, doctors, other medical professionals, professors, teachers, students, academics, ministers, politicians, government employees... make mistakes all the time. The scrutiny intensifies when they are women, non-UC or Dalit. Before you erupt with protestations that nowadays the opposite happens, let me tell you, that’s just not true. The opposite doesn’t happen. What happens is a greater demand for accountability and acceptance of privilege.
There is no such thing as “reverse” sexism, casteism or racism. Discrimination is by definition top down – as is the question of merit. So even if it is a "box" being "ticked", it is as necessary as holding incumbents accountable.
Comments