One of the key arguments for Scudamore keeping his job is that currently there has been no confirmation that the emails were sent privately or from a work computer. The PA responsible for leaking the emails claims they were sent from a work computer, whereas the Premier League are claiming they were sent privately.
The pressure on Scudamore to resign is increasing through protests on social media but one of the key arguments in support of Scudamore is that the emails were potentially private.
|No sacking for Scudamore|
The invasion of privacy is a threat which needs addressing, and one cannot condone the leakage of personal, private emails. However, when said emails are being sent by a man holding such a high position within the football industry, consequences are sure to ensue.
As autonomous moral agents we make decisions day in and day out. We consciously choose what we say, and where we say them. Therefore we are completely responsible for what we say, and even if the words we say in private are leaked, or made public, we are still responsible for them.
Saying something offensive in private does not equate to immunity from public offence. Just because we have sent an offensive comment through text does not grant us invincibility from consequence.
Furthermore, the outright hypocrisy of this incident is more than confusing. To hear a person say that the Premier League strives to be at the edge of the equality agenda, and then to read that they have been sending misogynistic emails, leaves people questioning the credibility and morality of the agent responsible.
What is most shocking in this incident though is how acceptable sexism has been made to seem. When Paul Elliott was found to have sent a racist comment through a private text, public outrage was of such a calibre that he was forced to resign, with his boss saying that Elliott's position was made untenable by his comments, despite how well he did his job.
This begs the question, why is racism treated with a far higher severity than sexism? What is it about sexism that society seems to find so acceptable? Is it the blanket term of "banter" which Katie Hopkins has categorised Scudamore's comments under? Or more probably, is it because societies patriarchal roots determine what women can and can't be offended by, and decisions to label misogynistic comments as banter?
Richard Scudamore ought not to remain in his job. This is not a personal vendetta against Scudamore, because undeniably he carries out his job very well. What this is, is asking for a precedent to be set regarding how sexist incidents are treated in comparison to racist incidents.
What the Premier League, and Scudamore are now responsible for is sending out a message, clear as day, that sexism is acceptable. That in the football industry, it is acceptable to be sexist and hold misogynistic values.
What this therefore means is that the Premier League cannot be on the edge of the equality agenda, because it is farcical. It is utterly laughable to assume that anyone will take their claims of striving for equality seriously after the way this incident has been dealt with.
This is why I am campaigning for Richard Scudamore to resign, because as a young woman with ambitions of working within football, I want to know that my basic human rights to be free from discrimination will be secured.
I want to know that my right to equality, will be treated just the same as any other person. I want to know that sexism will be treated and investigated with the same rigour as racism, and homophobia.
Unfortunately, I cannot be assured that this will happen. This is why I'm campaigning - to set a precedent. Not to condone the leakage of personal emails, but to stand up for anybody who is discriminated against and categorically say that discrimination of any form is unacceptable.