Premise: the Acerbi-Juan Jesus affair must be analyzed by talking about player X and player Y, the names don’t matter, The teams you belong to don’t matter, the support and the sides and positions linked to it don’t matter. This theme cannot be “polluted” with typhus, at least not this one. The principle on which the Acerbi-Juan Jesus ruling is based (read here) must be respected, as it is the cornerstone of the law: you cannot be convicted without proof. It applies to ordinary justice and also to sports justicealbeit with some different nuances that do not change the substance. However, what was written by the Sports Judge cannot help us say that all this is not enough for us, because it leaves questions, many, which have not yet been clarified. Here we are dealing with alleged racism, not just a fact on the field, and therefore There is a central ethical question involved when it comes to sport and beyond. The analysis of the facts, especially those reported in the sentence, cannot fail to lead to a strong need to know more. We need more clarity and more transparency. And one of the two parties involved could contribute in a decisive way to all this, the one we have not yet heard: Francesco Acerbi.
The reconstruction
To better understand the sentence (and what still doesn’t add up) it is useful to reconstruct what happened from Inter-Napoli on the evening of 17 March onwards:
The images of the match prove that it is there a game clash between Acerbi and Juan Jesus. Subsequently, a contact between the two, some words. Following the episode, a clarification arrives and (also from the images available) Acerbi’s apologies can be understood towards the opposing defender. Afterwards, Juan Jesus turns to the referee and claims that he has been subjected to racist insults (the defender also touches the Serie A anti-racist patch). In the post-game Juan Jesus answers questions about the episode: “He saw that he went further and apologized.” Therefore, the apology is presumed from the images and is confirmed by the player, who closes the incident by limiting it on the pitch. But what did Acerbi apologize for in detail?
The next day Acerbi leaves the national team retreat waiting for light to be shed on the episode. Upon arrival in Milan, journalists present rhe responds by stating that he has not uttered racist phrases: “They never came out of my mouth. I’ve been playing football for 20 years and I know what I’m saying. I am calm.” Following Acerbi’s words, and the previous statements of his agent Federico Pastorello, Juan Jesus reacts with a post on social media in which he then decides to give his version in detail summary of the facts: “For me the issue was closed yesterday on the pitch with Acerbi’s apologies and I honestly would have preferred not to go back to something as ignoble as what I had to suffer. Today, however, I read Acerbi’s statements which are totally at odds with the reality of the facts, with what he himself said yesterday on the pitch and with the evidence also shown by videos and unequivocal lips in which he asks me for forgiveness. So I don’t agree. Racism is fought here and now. Acerbi told me: ‘Go away black, you’re just a black man..’. Following my protest to the referee, he admitted he had made a mistake and apologized to me, then also adding: ‘for me, black guy, it’s an insult like any other’. Today he changed his story and claims that there was no racist insult.”
Finally the investigation by the federal prosecutor’s office, the hearings of the two players (Acerbi accompanied by the club’s lawyer and the CEO Marotta, Juan Jesus alone), and finally the sentence. The position supported by the Napoli defender is clear, and it is the same one that he himself published. We only have journalistic indiscretions on Acerbi’s version, not confirmed by the player openly. According to his reconstruction, Juan Jesus would have misunderstood the phrase “I’ll make you black” that Acerbi would have uttered towards his opponent on the pitch.
The questions and answers that are missing
So we have lined up, in a schematic way, the stages of the story precisely to always have the order of the facts in mind. Facts that raise many questions, even more so after reading the sentence:
Is it possible that none of the 22 players on the pitch heard anything, as can be seen from what the Sports Judge wrote? We know that some players have been interviewed by the Federal Prosecutor’s Office: who are they? And in what way?
Is it possible that a detail, a fact, an image has not been found that makes one version more credible than a totally opposite one?
The sentence recognizes that Acerbi uttered an offense which, however, cannot be demonstrated to be racist. This is the central point. Acerbi’s words are defined in the sentence as “offensive and threatening” and recognized as such also by Acerbi. So what would this offensive and threatening, but not racist, insult be? What was reported by Acerbi during the hearing at the Federal Prosecutor’s Office? The version that leaks out, we repeat, is that the Inter player said to Juan Jesus: “I’ll make you black.” If this were true, wouldn’t it therefore be incompatible with what was reported in the sentence? “I’ll make you black” is not a racist expression, but can it be considered “offensive and threatening”? Obviously not.
The question Acerbi should answer
At the moment the facts remain, starting from the clarification of the two players on the pitch up to today’s sentence. But doubts also remain. And, perhaps, Acerbi himself should answer the most important question. Given the scope of the accusation that was at stake, namely the alleged racism, it seems legitimate to ask Acerbi: what did he say on the pitch? What did he tell the Prosecutor? And again, it would be interesting to know if he intends, for example, to sue Juan Jesus who accused him of being racist and also a liar. All questions that have no inquisitorial intent, let’s be clear. On the contrary, Wouldn’t it also and above all be in Acerbi’s interest to clarify the matter in a transparent way? Remove all doubts about the fact that he has never uttered racist phrases, and not due to insufficient evidence? This ruling has too many obscure elements: given that the topic is racism we need to know more and no one can clarify things better than Acerbi. It is legitimate and indeed it is a duty to ask, it must not end here. This cannot be enough, a sentence cannot be enough which – especially in the part relating to the definition of Acerbi’s insult – does not clarify what happened and limits itself to proving both wrong and right, sterilizing any possible reply. Also considering that the sentence is final and cannot be appealed. The sports judge did well not to look for a middle solution, disqualification for anti-sportsmanlike behavior, for example. Racism is not unsportsmanlike, it is much worse, and here we need to know if it happened or not. No one can be convicted for lack of evidence, this is indisputable. Acerbi is not guilty, this is equally indisputable. This is a sentence that must be respected. But it would be much better, to understand it, to know what Acerbi’s version is, the detail that is missing, what is the content of his testimony. And why Juan Jesus’ complaint – subsequent to what was found in the field – was deemed credible, or not credible, like Acerbi’s version.
1970-01-01 00:00:00
#AcerbiJuan #Jesus #ruling
