Sam Kerr’s racial harassment allegation puts Football Australia in a difficult position

Football Australia has been plunged into a crisis the likes of which it never saw coming.

World football star Sam Kerr – captain of the hugely popular Matildas women’s national team – has been accused in England of racist harassment of a police officer. Standing accused using offensive, threatening or abusive words that caused alarm or distress to an officer responding to a taxi dispute in London in January 2023.

Kerr pleaded not guilty, as did Judge Judith Elaine Coello quoted saying to the player’s lawyer:

I understand that the defense is that she didn’t intend to cause alarm, harassment or alarm to the officer, [her behaviour] it was not synonymous and was not racist.

If found guilty on the general public order charges, she could resist two years in prison and/or a hefty advantageous, given the racist nature of the fees.

What can – or will – Football Australia as the game’s governing body do without waiting for the final result of a criminal trial in February next yr?

Immediate challenges for Football Australia

Kerr’s decision not inform criminal charges against her employers are questionable. While individuals have a right to privacy, the status of athletes blurs that line, especially when it affects behavior outside of the game itself.

The Matildas have built their status on inclusion – and Kerr. They are proud and vocal in their support of football’s zero tolerance for racism and discrimination of any kind. Against this backdrop, the shocking news of Kerr’s accusations was much more stark.

Both Football Australia CEO James Johnson and Matilda coach Tony Gustavsson admitted this without knowing nothing in regards to the allegations until the media reports it. It soon became clear that that they had as many questions because the journalists who bombarded them with questions for answers.

Until the criminal trial ends, with a four-day hearing scheduled for February 2025, the case will hang over Kerr, who’s currently unable to play for club and country as she recovers from anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

While Kerr is entitled to the presumption of innocence as she prepares for trial in almost a yr, the challenges facing Football Australia are more immediate as she decides the right way to navigate a major event involving the captain of her most beloved team.

No one aside from the parties involved knows the total extent of what happened on that night in January 2023, when police were called to a dispute over a taxi fare in Twickenham and alleged racial harassment occurred. However, it is thought that the employer of Sam Kerr – some of the recognizable athletes in the world – was apparently not informed in regards to the incident.

Professional athletes are aware of the increased responsibility they bear given their public profile and role model status. Kerr is respected by the Australian public. Her name is a key factor in why Matilda’s product sales are actually two to 1 greater than those of Socceroos.

Hard questions

For many Kerr fans, the presumption of innocence takes priority over all other considerations.

But it isn’t just the accused’s personal status that is at stake for the game’s governing body. There can also be the image of the game and its integrity, rigorously crafted over a few years, seemingly so easily compromised.

The National Rugby League (NRL) has a controversial ‘no-fault’ policy which allows rugby league to suspend a player facing serious criminal charges pending the final result of a court case.

Take the case of an NRL player Jack de Belin, who resigned after pressing charges (he was not convicted). This case illustrates why this policy has been questioned, provided that an athlete cannot regain time lost during a suspension, or, it might be argued, his or her status, once the fees are dropped or she or he is found not guilty.

Football Australia national code of conduct and ethics states that a company can issue a “temporary no-fault suspension” in any situation where:

in the reasonable opinion of Football Australia, the status of Football Australia or football in general can be damaged if the Constituent weren’t temporarily suspended.

But will they do it?

Football Australia must consider difficult questions resembling:

• How do they balance supporting the well-being of their player and respecting the victim of alleged racial harassment?

• Is it appropriate for a team built around a zero tolerance policy to have a player accused of racial harassment as captain?

• despite the fact that Kerr is injured and certain won’t play on the Paris Olympics this yr, is she still welcome to play a motivating role for the team?

• Once Kerr recovers from injury, should she routinely return as captain – or should she be considered for selection – if the trial has not yet reached its verdict?

• What will probably be the impact on sponsorship and support for the Matildas brand if Kerr stays captain ahead of the trial?

• what will probably be the results if Kerr is stepped down, as politics allows, and is later found not guilty of the fees?

A matter of trust

At a previously scheduled press conference announcing details of the two-match pre-Olympic series against China (which was picked up by Kerr’s news), Johnson said:

We have our own questions that we wish to know, we’d like to search out out what actually happened.

The undeniable fact that he doesn’t know implies that Johnson has two problems in the case of Kerr: one related to the law and the opposite related to trust.

The court will choose one thing. Football Australia must determine otherwise.