Patent Integrity

Take a look at this sentence. A good hard look because it needs to be read carefully and intelligently, not glossed over and accepted without question. “Questioning the integrity of a match official and accusing them of lying is a very serious claim to make as it questions the whole integrity of the game.”

So what exactly do you think it means? And what are the implications?

One thing which should be obvious is that the key word here is ‘integrity’, so that has to be the starting point. Of course, everyone knows what ‘integrity’ means – or thinks they do – but are you sure? At this stage you might like to consult a dictionary, where you’ll almost certainly find ‘integrity’ linked with ‘honesty’. Now think about it. Is ‘integrity’ synonymous with ‘honesty’ – or is there more to it than that?

This is the point at which you realise that ‘integrity’ is a word which is bandied about a lot but defies easy classification and, therefore, understanding. It is close to, but much more than, honesty. It is not just a matter of truth but essential human decency and a respect for what is right.

Now that we’ve thought about that we can return to the sentence. Perhaps the first thing you notice is that the word ‘integrity’ occurs twice. On the first occasion it is used to state – no, more than that, to warn - that any challenge to the integrity of a match official is “very serious” and it does so in a way that implies that the integrity of a match official, any match official, should be regarded as unimpeachable. Beyond reproach. So what is it about all these match officials that enables them to have the kind of integrity that is beyond ‘ordinary’ people? People like Arsene Wenger for instance? And if this is so, why is there such profound and widespread dissatisfaction in the professional game with the way virtually all of them do the job? And what on earth, turning to the second use of ‘integrity’, is meant by “the whole integrity of the game”? Because if ‘integrity’ is akin to, but more than, ‘honesty’, as things stand that is an astonishingly naïve or pretentious claim, since you could easily spend months investigating and detailing examples of lack of integrity – certainly at the highest levels of the game.

The whole point of this sentence is that it’s OK as long as you’re a bit pompous and you read it quickly and uncritically - which is particularly interesting when you consider the context. It was provoked by the fact that Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger had dared to question the honesty of the version of Emmanuel Adebayor’s involvement in a mass disturbance towards the end of the Carling Cup final which was provided by a linesman – ironically the same linesman who was apparently incapable of seeing that Didier Drogba’s first half equaliser was offside. And significantly it was attributed to “an FA spokesman”. Or to put it another way, it was unattributed.

The implication of all this is simple – much more simple than the task of attempting a good working definition of the word ‘integrity’. All match officials are equal, because they start with the advantage of unimpeachable integrity – even, apparently, the incompetent ones. The FA (which presumably means all of it, faceless or otherwise) also enjoys immunity from any challenge to its integrity – as is made clear when the unnamed spokesman goes on to declare loftily that “We also reject any accusations of bias or dishonesty within our disciplinary system”. In other words, don’t bother to challenge the FA because we are never wrong.

Interestingly enough, their lordships at the FA as so busy providing blanket coverage of the absolute purity of their own integrity and the integrity of all officials that it never occurs to them to consider that they may - albeit on rare occasions - be mistaken, or that Arsene Wenger may have access to integrity, or that Frank Lampard may have shown integrity by confirming that Adebayor did not punch him. But that is unthinkable, because if it is acknowledged that those lesser mortals may be capable of honourable behaviour, it inevitably follows that….

Perish the thought.