On Thursday March 30, the French Football Federation (FFF) sent the referees an email in which it specified that“He was brought to (at) knowledge of match interruptions following the breaking of the Ramadan fast (contrary to) provisions of the statutes of the FFF”. The federation would have recalled “the scrupulous application of the first article of the statutes of the federation on the demanding respect for the principle of secularism in football”. Didier Digard, coach of the Nice team, reacted by saying: “We are in a secular country, not in a Muslim country. »
These reactions contain several errors to which it seems useful to come back as they confirm a misunderstanding of the principle of secularism in one of the countries which has nevertheless developed it the most.
No neutrality for players
Article 1 of the FFF statutes does not recall the “demanding respect for the principle of secularism in football”, because it could not. When I was general rapporteur for the Observatory of Secularism, I accompanied the federation in its desire to rewrite its statutes. On this occasion, the federation was reminded that secularism only had consequences for its staff. Because of the principle of separation laid down by the law of December 9, 1905, secularism imposes neutrality on those who represent the public administration.
Such is the case of the staff of the federation, since the latter is delegated a public service (which was not always known). This does not concern the players, who, like any user, see their freedom of conscience guaranteed thanks to secularism. Nevertheless, as this article 1 reminds us, regulation clothing can be legitimately imposed on those who practice a sport in a club, whatever it may be.
Regulatory dress… for hygienic reasons
This rule of regulatory dress, which exists everywhere in the world, is not based on secularism but on respect for the rules of the game, hygiene and safety. It can lead to the objective prohibition of accessories having a religious connotation, and therefore to de facto neutrality.
However, the recent ban enacted by the FFF of any headgear for the only players of all clubs is questionable in law. As long as a headgear respects the rules of the game, hygiene and safety, thus conforming to the regulatory dress, there is no objective reason to prohibit it. Thus, a scarf may be prohibited if it resembles a veil carrying a risk of strangulation, snagging or discomfort in bodily movements. On the other hand, a headgear of the type of a tight hat will not be. This general ban on all headgear for female players is put forward by some in the name of gender equality. However, the wearing on a football field of certain headgear by men has never posed a problem.
Let us also remember that France only officially recognized women’s football in 1970 and that previously, when it was tolerated, the regulatory dress included the compulsory wearing of a large cap… Who still remembers the words of the sports leader (creator of the Tour de France), Henri Desgrange in 1926: “That young girls even dare to run after a ball in a meadow which is not surrounded by thick walls, that is intolerable! » ? Closer to home, in 2019, on the occasion of the Women’s Football World Cup, academician Alain Finkielkraut exclaimed on television: “That’s not how I want to see women!” » We would like to hear these “defenders” of equality on subjects other than headgear: if Germany has more than a million licensees, France has only 200,000.
A secular state therefore aconfessional
The problem of breaking the fast also refers to the supposed neutrality of the players. As we have seen, if club players are not subject to the principles of secularism and neutrality, they can legitimately be required to wear objectively defined regulations. Moreover, the practice grounds are not places of propaganda, their behavior cannot be proselytizing. Therefore, does eating or drinking constitute an act of proselytism? The answer is no, since only behaviours, comments or writings aimed at encouraging the support of others can be qualified as such. This is why the FFF itself reassigns players to their supposed beliefs when it prohibits, precisely during Ramadan, any cool break otherwise already authorized since 2014 by Fifa.
Can you imagine the FFF preventing this break which satisfies all the players on a very hot day, because it is concomitant with Ramadan? Finally, let us remind Didier Digard that if France is a secular State, that is to say non-confessional, it is a plural country where the indifferent, agnostics, atheists but also believers mix. Secularism is not an anti- or pro-religion tool, it is a tool that allows us to work together regardless of our affiliation, not by responding to a particular interest, but by offering responses of general interest. Is hydrating or eating a cookie during a two-minute break an exclusively religious act?
—–
