The full reasons have been given for why Rodrigo Bentancur has been handed a seven-game suspension and £100,000 fine for his comments about his Tottenham captain Son Heung-min and the midfielder has also put his side across.
The FA announced on Monday that "an independent regulatory commission has imposed a seven-match suspension and £100,000 fine on Rodrigo Bentancur for a breach of FA Rule E3 in relation to a media interview. It was alleged that the Tottenham Hotspur midfielder breached FA Rule E3.1 as he acted in an improper manner and/or used abusive and/or insulting words and/or brought the game into disrepute. It was further alleged that this constitutes an “aggravated breach”, which is defined in FA Rule E3.2, as it included a reference – whether express or implied – to nationality and/or race and/or ethnic origin.
"Rodrigo Bentancur denied this charge, but the independent regulatory commission found it to be proven and imposed his sanctions following a hearing."
Spurs now have a set amount of time to decide whether to appeal the decision or not. Bentancur will otherwise miss six Premier League games and the Carabao Cup quarter-final with Manchester United, before being able to return to action on Boxing Day. He will currently be able to play in Tottenham's Europa League matches.
The FA have also released the full set of documents relating to the decision made by the regulatory commission. They state that the events that were being investigated were "not substantially in dispute" and the player was interviewed at home by Uruguayan journalist Rafa Cotelo, who was accompanied by an assistant and cameraman.
The documents state that "in about June 2024, the player was interviewed at his home" but then also state that Cotelo and his team were at the Bentancur's house for three to four hours, and also saw the player the day before when he was the player's guest for Spurs' match against Nottingham Forest, which would suggest the interview was actually undertaken in April.
The key part of the interview came with a request by Cotelo to see one of the football shirts that Bentancur had at his home. Here is the translation of the exchange that was used in the case documents.
Cotelo: "Your shirt… well, what about the Korean’s shirt?
Bentancur: "Sonny?
Cotelo: "Or a champion."
Bentancur with a laugh: "Or one of Sonny’s cousins as they all look more or less the same."
Bentancur said, which the commission accepted, that Cotelo’s second comment interrupted him and that his two comments should be read together as "Sonny? Or one of Sonny’s cousins as they all look more or less the same".
It read: "Sony brother! I apologise to you for what happened, it was just a very bad joke! You know what I love you and I would never disrespect you or hurt you or anyone else! I love you brother! @hm_son7."
Bentancur then said he apologised to Son personally and wrote on his Instagram account the following week: "I would like to communicate to all fans and everyone who follows us that after my interview where I referred to Son and no one else, I have spoken to him and, logically given our deep friendship, he understands it was only an unfortunate misunderstanding.
"All has been clarified and solved with my friend. If someone felt offended because of my words through this media tool I would like to offer my sincere apologies. But I would also like you to know that never, never I referred to anyone else. Only to Son and for that reason I’ve never had the intention to offend directly or indirectly anyone. A big hug and all my respect to anyone."
Son responded on his Instagram page: "I’ve spoken with Lolo. He made a mistake. He knows this and has apologised. Lolo would not mean to ever intentionally say something offensive. We are brothers and nothing has changed at all. We’re past this, we’re united, and we will be back together in preseason to fight for our club as one."
The FA decided a charge would be brought under Rule E3.1 and E3.2. A formal charge letter was sent to Bentancur on September 11 and he responded by denying the charge and asked for the matter to be dealt with on the basis of written submissions only, with the commission consequently dispensed with an oral hearing. The commission duly met on November 12 to consider the charge, the written submissions and accompanying documents.
The FA's submission said that what was said by Bentancur was not in dispute and that: "There can be no doubt that those words are objectively insulting and/or abusive. Whilst, of course, context is important – and this part of the conversation began with Mr Cotelo referring to “the Korean”, an unfortunate and inappropriate way to refer to Heung-Min Son – to respond the way the player did, in the words he used and laughter, is “clearly to be universally regarded as highly offensive and insulting and/or abusive”.
"Although the media had not reported Mr Cotelo’s earlier use of the term “the Korean”, it is submitted that, in his apologies, the suggestion that the player was apologising, not for what he said (which is portrayed by the player as a sarcastic and gentle rebuke of Cotelo for his use of the term “the Korean” rather than any offensive words he himself had used), but for the inadequate reporting on the interview which excluded Mr Cotelo’s reference to “the Korean”, does not survive examination in the light of the other available evidence. But, even if it were an attempt at confronting Mr Cotelo’s inappropriate term with sarcasm and gentle rebuke, what the player said was in any event objectively insulting and/or abusive, and thus in breach."
The FA "expressly made clear that it made no assertion that the player is a racist, only that the words he used in the circumstances he used them, when objectively considered, amounted to an Aggravated Breach under Rules E3.1 and E3.2".
Bentancur's defence was that he was in fact chiding the reporter in a sarcastic manner for the way they referred to Son.
It was submitted in his response that much of the public criticism of the Uruguayan's remarks "appears to have come in blissful ignorance of a vital remark made by the journalist… that is vitally important to set the exchange in context". His defence claims the words used by the player were in response to Cotelo’s "regrettable" reference to his colleague and friend Son as "the Korean". It is said the player was "surprised and uncomfortable" by Cotelo’s use of that term.
In Bentancur's observations, sent on behalf of him by the club, it explained: "Rodrigo’s reply was sarcastic and a gentle rebuke for the journalist calling Sonny ‘The Korean’. Rodrigo does not believe that all Koreans ‘look more or less the same’. The context of the exchange clearly shows Rodrigo is being sarcastic. It was Mr Cotelo who described Sonny as ‘The Korean’. In the context of the conversation, it was obvious that Mr Cotelo was referring to Sonny as ‘The Korean’, and Rodrigo was challenging the journalist in his description of his club team-mate."
It goes on that the words Bentancur used "were intended to be a light-hearted and jocular manner of chiding the journalist for his use of a generalisation that was wholly inappropriate”, as they claim that journalist knew Son's name because he used it in another part of the interview conducted at a different time.
It is suggested that the remarks were intended to "gently challenge" Cotelo and that the midfielder's remarks could only be objectively offensive if Cotelo’s use of the term “the Korean” is ignored.
Bentancur's submissions continued that the conversation was in the privacy of his home, and he had “a reasonable expectation of privacy and – moreover – a reasonable expectation that the journalist would show more common sense in what he posted".
The Spurs star said in his response that he had no editorial control over what was posted from the interview and "expressed surprise – indeed, horror – that Cotelo chose to publish these remarks at all, let alone on Instagram or YouTube, particularly as, without reference to Mr Cotelo’s remark, the words appeared to have been made gratuitously".
The commission took all of the above into account and decided that it was their "firm conclusion that the breach under Rules E3.1 and E3.2, as alleged, is proved".
Their conclusion reads: "Even on the basis of the player's evidence and submissions, we consider the player's conduct in using the words he did, in the full context in which they were used, was clearly abusive and insulting, and would amount to misconduct. The player appears to accept that by saying, “Sonny? Or one of Sonny’s cousins as they all look more or less the same”, he meant to refer to a generalised characterisation of the nationality and/or race and/or ethnic origin of Heung-Min Son, albeit with best of intentions.
"But, even if the player intended those words to be a “sarcastic and gentle rebuke” to Mr Cotelo for referring to Heung-Min Son as “the Korean” as he did, to respond in those terms would be objectively regarded as insulting and/or abusive and highly offensive. We agree with The FA’s submission: it would clearly be universally regarded as such."
The commission's verdict also states that the player's posts on social media to apologise show that the midfielder was aware that his remarks on face value had been objectively offensive and insulting as did the club's statement. The verdict also decided that Son's response and the references to "mistakes" also showed that.
Bentancur also admitted that in the wording of his first apology, the use of "sarcastic" would have been a better word to use than 'joke' in the phase "just a very bad joke".
The commission's conclusion went on: "It was submitted on behalf of the player that the apologies he made were not for what he said – which, as we have described, he maintained was a sarcastic and gently rebuking response to Mr Cotelo’s reference to “the Korean” – but for the inadequate reporting of the interview by excluding any mention of Mr Cotelo’s use of that term.
"However, we cannot accept that submission, which flies in the face of the evidence. It does not sit with the content or form of the player’s apologies or the response of THFC or Heung-Min Son. Indeed, looking objectively at the player’s first apology, we are firmly of the view (and find as a fact) that, contrary to the core submissions eventually made to us on the player’s behalf, when viewed objectively and in context, it was a genuine and heartfelt apology by the player, before he had consulted THFC or anyone else, that recognised that his words were objectively offensive and wished to make clear his regret for the offence caused, notably to Heung-Min Son, his team colleague and friend.
"As such, these apologies do not assist the player at all on the question of liability for breach, as was submitted on his behalf; but they (and particularly the first apology) do provide powerful mitigation, to which we return when we consider sanction."
It continued: "Nor were we impressed by the further submission made on the player’s behalf that what he said to Mr Cotelo was said in private, and he had “a reasonable expectation of privacy and – moreover – a reasonable expectation that the journalist would show more common sense in what he posted”. Mr Cotelo is a well-known journalist who was working on a series of internet films on high profile Uruguayan footballers. He attended the player's home with a film crew. He was there, in a professional capacity, for over four hours. The player could have been in no doubt that the interview would be turned into a film that would be put onto the internet, and attract considerable attention there.
"We accept that he retained no editorial control over the interview; but that was all the more reason for caution in what he said, given that Mr Cotelo was free to publish anything said to him in the interview. We do not accept that the player could reasonably have been surprised at the publication of anything that he said in the course of the interview, including the remarks at the heart of this charge. If the player had wanted specifically to exclude something he had said in the interview from being published, he could have said so to Mr Cotelo.
"There is no evidence that he sought to do so in respect of the remarks he made which are at the heart of these proceedings. In any event, the player’s misconduct was what he said to Mr Cotelo in the interview, not the publication of that by Mr Cotelo."
In deciding Bentancur's sanction, the commission took into account that he had had no previous offences of any kind and "there is no evidence before us of him ever having engaged in racist or otherwise discriminatory conduct inside or outside football".
They also said: "Whilst this was an absence of aggravation rather than positive mitigation, we accept there was no pre-meditation, nor did the player intend his comments to cause offence to his friend, Heung-Min Son, or to anyone else. The player initially showed remorse and took responsibility for his actions and offered full and (we have no doubt) sincere apologies.
"In our view, that was greatly to his credit. It was not to his credit that, thereafter, he elected to deny the charge on grounds which, on their face, undermined that initial, commendable reaction. However, despite the submissions made on his behalf before us which tended to undermine the force of that early apology, we consider his remorse was and is genuine."
The commission decided that when it came to the six to 12-game recommended sanction for such a rule breach, "in terms of culpability and consequences, this breach falls towards the lower end of the guideline range but not the lowest point. Cases can easily be envisaged which are less serious than this, but nevertheless subject to the minimum suspension of six matches".
It was decided that Bentancur would be suspended from seven domestic club matches, fined the sum of £100,000 and ordered to attend a mandatory face-to-face education programme, provided to him by The FA and to be completed by March 11, 2025.
Listen to the latest episode of Gold & Guest Talk Tottenham by clicking here for in-depth Spurs chat on your preferred podcast platform.
