Swift resolution should have seen off Suarez shame

It’s rare that a sportsman adorns both the front and back pages of national weekend papers, and it normally means one of two things. An heroic achievement beyond the norm, or a public indiscretion beyond the pale. Unfortunately for Liverpool player Luis Suarez, he finds himself rooted firmly in the latter camp - the new poster boy of sport’s ‘Hall of Shame’. Refusing to shake the hand of Manchester United player Patrice Evra would in most circumstances simply be seen as bad manners, or a crude attempt at the time honoured sporting practice of ‘mind games’. But in the context of this match, and the two players’ personal history, it was dynamite.


After being found guilty of misconduct and fined £40,000 for racially abusing Patrice Evra, Suarez has found himself at the centre of a wider debate on race and racial discrimination. Suarez’s comments came amidst a media still digesting the recent conviction of two of the murderers of black teenager Stephen Lawrence. For many commentators, there was an obvious link to be made between the Stephen Lawrence case and his comments, with the latter a clear indication of the persistence of racism on terraces and within British society; racism responsible for Stephen’s death. Fair or not, Suarez’s comments neatly dovetailed with current social commentary.


Given this combustible context, Suarez and his manager Kenny Dalglish’s actions represent a huge own goal for Liverpool (sorry!) on two important communications principles. Firstly, make sure there are clear channels for internal communications. In times of crisis, it is vital that people within an organisation are aware of each other’s future actions and sing from the same sheet. A number of people have suggested that Dalglish was shocked that Suarez refused to shake Evra’s hand, this can only have occurred through a breakdown in internal communications. Secondly, identify an opportunity to draw a line under bad publicity. The handshake at the start of Liverpool’s game against Manchester United presented the perfect chance to bring a resolution to the issue. Instead, Suarez’s actions meant both he and Liverpool were in the weekend papers for all the wrong reasons. To make matters worse, Dalglish’s post-match comments criticising the media and refusing to condemn his player’s actions meant further opprobrium. As a blueprint for how to mess up external communications, it’s a pretty thorough one.


Race and racial prejudice is quite rightly an emotive issue, and coverage criticising Liverpool’s handling of the issue has spread as far as the New York Times. There have even been suggestions that lucrative sponsorship deals are under threat. The result has been an inevitable apology from player and manager, but the lesson learnt must be to never allow pride to get the better of effective communications.


John Hood
Consultant
john@linstockcommunications.com