Bentancur banned for seven games over racial slur

Tottenham midfielder Rodrigo Bentancur has been given a seven-match domestic ban by the Football Association for using a racial slur about team-mate Son Heung-min.

Bentancur, who has also been fined £100,000 and ordered to take part in a mandatory face-to-face education programme, was charged by the FA in September after comments made while appearing on TV in his home country of Uruguay in June.

“Rodrigo Bentancur denied this charge, but the independent regulatory commission found it to be proven and imposed his sanctions following a hearing,” said an FA statement.

The 27-year-old will not return to domestic action until 26 December, missing Premier League matches against Manchester City, Liverpool and Chelsea, among others, plus Spurs’ League Cup quarter-final against Manchester United.

He will still be available for Tottenham’s Europa League matches.

Bentancur has played 15 times for Tottenham this season and scored his first goal of the campaign in a defeat by Ipswich on 11 November.

The incident happened in his own time and so, as he plays in England, fell under the jurisdiction of the FA – unlike the situation involving Chelsea midfielder Enzo Fernandez.

Fernandez was on international duty when he posted a video – which the French Football Federation (FFF) said included an alleged “racist and discriminatory” chant – of Argentina celebrating winning the Copa America, and is being investigated by world governing body Fifa.

What did Bentancur say?

When charging the Uruguay international the FA said it was “an alleged breach of FA rule E3 for misconduct in relation to a media interview”.

The FA said this constituted an “aggravated breach… as it included a reference, whether express or implied, to nationality and/or race and/or ethnic origin”.

In the media interview in question, asked by a presenter for a Tottenham shirt, Bentancur replied: “Sonny’s? It could be Sonny’s cousin too as they all look the same.”

He later apologised on social media and said his comments were a “very bad joke”.

Bentancur also said sorry to South Korea forward Son, who said he would “not mean to ever intentionally say something offensive”.

What was Bentancur’s defence and what did the panel say?

Bentancur’s offence carried a punishment of a six to 12-match ban and, in its written reasons,, external the FA said the player “asked for the matter to be dealt with on the basis of written submissions only”.

A response to the charge sent by Tottenham on behalf of Bentancur said: “Rodrigo’s reply was sarcastic and a gentle rebuke for the journalist calling Sonny ‘the Korean'”.

“Rodrigo does not believe that all Koreans ‘look more or less the same’. The context of the exchange clearly shows Rodrigo is being sarcastic… Rodrigo was challenging the journalist in his description of his club team-mate.”

It was also submitted that Bentancur’s apology for his comments was “not for what he said, but for the inadequate reporting on the interview which excluded” the presenter’s reference to Son as “the Korean”.

However, the panel concluded Bentancur’s “conduct in using the words he did, in the full context in which they were used, was clearly abusive and insulting, and would amount to misconduct”.

They found that the apologies made by him appear to show he accepted he had caused offence and a statement from Spurs, external in response to his apologies “appears to have accepted that the player’s remarks had been objectively insulting and/or abusive and discriminatory”.

The panel said that they could not accept the submission of Bentancur as it “flies in the face of the evidence” and “does not sit with the content or form of the player’s apologies or the response of THFC or Son Heung-min”.

In determining the sanction, the independent regulatory commission took into account Bentancur had no previous offences, did not mean to cause offence and, “despite the submissions made on his behalf before us which tended to undermine the force of that early apology, we consider his remorse was and is genuine”.

It added: “In all the circumstances, we consider that, in terms of culpability and consequences, this breach falls towards the lower end of the guideline range but not the lowest point.”