See below, what is hopefully a mature and well thought out look at the main issues surrounding this year’s PFA awards ceremony, what should be a joyous celebration but has so far only been looked at by the press in an immature and poorly thought out way. Here goes it then...
Was (insert player name) unfairly overlooked for the PFA Player of the Year award?
In a word, no. Whomever your chosen favourite is I can assure you that they were not unfairly treated. There has seemingly been an outpouring of support for stars such as Michu, Santi Cazorla and Leighton Baines who have all had exceptional campaigns but were not in the top 6 nominees. The nature of this award dictates that they did not deserve to be.
The reason that the award is seen as such an astonishing accolade to have is because it is voted for by the players themselves. John Terry stated in 2005 that it was “the ultimate accolade to be voted for by your fellow professionals whom you play against week-in and week-out”. He’s right.
This award shows that you have earned the respect of your peers. That’s what it’s about. Michu (using him as an example) did not deserve the award as he did not win the respect of his peers. Not to the extent that Bale, Suarez, van Persie, Hazard, Mata and Carrick did anyway. That is indisputable.
Football is unrivalled for generating discussion and there are sound, stat-based arguments to be made for many being the player of the season. But you can quote me every stat you like about the goals of Michu or the assists provided by Baines, they’re all irrelevant. It is only votes from PFA members that count, not stats.
To a certain extent this can answer any query that the awards has raised. Was Gareth Bale a deserving winner? Yes. Did Michael Carrick deserve to be in the top 6? Yes. Should Benteke have won the young player of the year award? No. Should Bale be allowed to win both awards? Yes. Because that is how the players voted.
The only way anyone can perhaps feel a little hard done by is if they finished behind 2nd placed Luis Suárez, as the voting was done so long ago. Had it have been done today there is a chance that Suárez may not have fared so well as the respect of his peers is something he will struggle to command for now.
Anyway, onto contentious point number 2.
Comedian Reginald D Hunter’s performance at the awards was offensive and he should never have been booked.
This one is a truly difficult point to address. Offense and humour are so subjective. It is likely that people were offended by Hunter’s use of what I will have to immaturely refer to as ‘the N word’. I don’t believe for a second however that no one in that room found it funny or that the audience was universally offended. And that is in no way me playing down the significance and negative history that surrounds the word. That’s just the nature of comedy. What some people find funny some will find juvenile and others will find deplorable.
I wasn’t at the PFA awards, I’ve had to do some reading to find out what the furor was about. I’ve been able to find out which offensive word Hunter used in every piece I have read. Not once have I seen any mention of the context of the word or the target of the joke. Hunter refers to race in all of his shows, but nobody seems to have listened to what he says about it.
And that is where the problem lies for me. No one at the PFA seemed to see this coming. They have ignored the fact that this is what Hunter is famous for, they were oblivious to the fact that ‘the N word’ appears in the title of four of Hunter’s solo tours.
It doesn’t take a private investigator to find these facts out. It seems that no one at the PFA had the ability to type ‘Reginald D Hunter’ into Google or YouTube. That’s all it would have taken. If I was booking a comedian for a racially sensitive event I would have probably had a little look into this. The PFA didn’t.
The PFA have been quick to put the blame on Hunter. They are trying to claim their fee back from him with the claim that they gave him a strict brief asking for no swearing and no racially sensitive material. This may be true but it seems a little irrelevant. Next year will they book Adele and ask her not to sing?
I don’t want this to turn into a rant on comedy and what is morally acceptable. My gripe is with the PFA not knowing what they find acceptable until they unleash something seemingly unacceptable on their membership.
Direct from the PFA website:
The aims of the PFA are to protect, improve and negotiate the conditions, rights and status of all professional players by collective bargaining agreements.
A noble cause and an important job. But if I were a player I wouldn’t put too much faith in the PFA right now. Their outburst in the direction of Reginald D Hunter may come less from their own outrage and more from their embarrassment over the fact that they have given us the impression that they are incapable of the simplest tasks.
I can’t imagine how awkward it is to be at the 10th birthday party of a PFA Executive's child when the stripper comes out.
It doesn’t make the PFA different from others. Much like many of footballs governing bodies, clubs and (often) players they too now have a hole to dig themselves out of and a reputation to rebuild. Best of luck to them.