Yesterday must have been interesting if you’re a follower of both football and the media. A couple of news stories appeared that were both concerning footballers trying to gag the media with an injunction, or a ‘super injunction’, to stop them from releasing details about their private lives. Story #1, as reported by the Press Gazette:
A new “super-injunction” has been used by a Premier League footballer to stop national newspapers reporting his alleged marital infidelity. The Daily Mail identifies the man only as a married England international. The Daily Mail today reports, in apparent defiance of the order: “So draconian is Mr Justice Tugendhat’s order that even its existence is supposed to be a secret.” Press Gazette has not been served with the injunction. The footballer was evidently able to argue that the Daily Mail’s planned revelations were a breach of his privacy.
It then goes on to say:
Just before Christmas a Premier League football club manager used an injunction to stop The Sun from revealing that he had visited a Thai “vice den”.
On the same day, John Terry failed to secure a ‘super injunction’against the News Of The World. Here’s story #2 from Press Gazette:
The News of the World has seen off an attempted injunction by England captain John Terry. Lawyers for the footballer – named by a judge as LNS – had obtained an interim “super-injunction” which not only stopped the NoW from publishing its story, but banned any mention that the injunction even existed. But this afternoon lawyers for the NoW succeeded in overturning the order after arguing that they had not been given sufficient notice. Now Press Gazette understands that the NoW has won its legal battle with the footballer and is free to publish its revelations about him this weekend. It has also won costs.
Of course, the bad news for News Of The World is that their exclusive is now everywhere.
This isn’t a new thing, of course, following the Trafigura scandal last October, but this is a story of not oil but of personal scandal. The Press Gazette says in its first story:
Case law interpreting the Human Rights Act appears to have established that it is not considered in the public interest to reveal the marital infidelities of public figures.”
But is it? The argument in the end boils down to the public figure in question.
So let’s examine John Terry. He’s a footballer who plays for one of the most popular clubs in world football, Chelsea, and the English national football team. He’s also the captain of both teams. Considering that a lot of people like football and quite a lot of people like Chelsea FC and England’s national team, allegations of an affair will be of some interest to lots of people. If I was supporting Chelsea, would I feel comfortable knowing that the captain of my team has a dodgy private life and does things that make most people feel spiteful about the human race? Probably not.
It also turns out that a lot of people who like football are kids and many of those kids dream about one day becoming a professional and playing for their favourite team. They look up to these people as role models: people who inspire them to get better and to achieve their goals. John Terry doesn’t strike me as a role model in light of these new allegations. But then, footballers these days are a bunch of overpaid, arrogant, disgusting human beings that quite frankly need to be brought back down to Earth. That’s beside the point though.
So in that light, I think the application of the case law regarding the Human Rights Act tends to be questionable, at least in this case. Last night on Twitter I noticed Ben Goldacre get wound up (Ben Goldacre? Getting wound up? But that never happens! At all!) over this entire saga and asking repeatedly why this is news. Of course, he isn’t a fan of football. I feel some sympathy for people who don’t like sport, football in particular, because I know if Iwas like them I’d feel annoyed by the constant high level of news value that is attributed to these stories. However, at the end of the day, football is of great interest to millions of people in this country, so it has its relevance. That’s just the way it is. Unless football becomes bankrupt overnight, it won’t change.
It also should be pointed out that the story at this point is still an ‘allegation’, albeit a strong one at that, and isn’t necessarily confirmed. The full truth won’t be out for a while, probably even months. What we have learnt though from all this is that footballers are not guaranteed injunctions to hide their private wrong-doings that will potentially damage their career. It’s only if there’s been evidence that a lot of footballers have been gagging the media that we should perhaps a bit more concerned about the values of free speech, but that time isn’t forthcoming anytime soon.
