The Football Association has outlined the exact “discriminatory comments” made by John Yems to Crawley Town players, but an independent panel appointed by the governing body said that the former manager, who is serving an 18-month ban, is not a “conscious racist”.
In the written reasons for his suspension published on Monday, the independent commission said: “We have accepted that Mr Yems is not a conscious racist. If he were, an extremely lengthy, even permanent, suspension would be appropriate.”
Yems, 63, had been accused of making 16 comments which were in breach of FA Rule E3.2 between 2019 and 2022. They were alleged to have referenced either ethnic origin, race, nationality, colour, gender or religion.
He previously admitted to one charge by the FA but denied the other 15. The independent regulatory commission then found 11 of the claims to be proven and four unproven during a hearing.
The upheld claims included that Yems would say Arnold Schwarzenegger's name in such a way to emphasise the N-word. He also repeatedly asked African players if they ate jerk chicken, despite being reminded more than once that it is a Jamaican dish, and referred to Black members of his squad as “Zulu warriors”.
Yems was also found to have told an Iraqi player that he “would probably blow up the stadium” and repeatedly referred to another player having “a bomb in his bag”. The former Crawley manager referred to another player as “curry muncher” and asked him if he wanted the club to serve “curry pizza”.
The 18-month ban, running until June 1 2024, is of record length for “discriminatory comments”, but the written reasons referred to his comments as “misplaced jocularity” and said the FA is “confident” he is not a racist.
The report said: “Mr Yems' 'banter' undoubtedly came across to the victims and others as offensive, racist and Islamophobic. Mr Yems simply paid no regard to the distress which his misplaced jocularity was causing.”
But the written reasons added: “We are confident that Mr Yems as a person is not a racist. Nor did Mr Yems ever intend to make racist remarks. Nevertheless, it is how what he said from time to time would be perceived by those to whom it was addressed which is what matters rather than his subjective intent.
“There was a considerable weight of evidence to the effect that Mr Yems was in the habit of, in his perception, cracking jokes which were perceived as racist by those who were the butt of the jokes. Probably, Mr Yems gave no thought at all to the effect of his language on those at whom the 'jokes' were aimed. Nor did he give any thought at all to the likely reaction of others to the language he used.
“In our view, Mr Yems was not deliberately lying in his evidence about not having said many of the things alleged. Indeed, he may well think that he did not in fact say what is alleged. In our view, he simply gave no thought at all to the effect of what he was saying from time to time. For him, there was nothing unusual or out of the ordinary in his language so as to make it memorable.
“Nevertheless, for those who were the butt of the comments the position was entirely different. We have already noted our finding that the players who gave evidence before us were impressive witnesses. We have no doubt that they were intending to tell us the truth, and we reject categorically the suggestion that any of them was lying.”
