David Moyes’ decision to start Kurt Zouma in West Ham’s win over Watford last night was an awful miscalculation, a failure of moral leadership that sent a grim message about the priorities of a community club.
Moyes is a thoroughly decent man and a fine manager, but he got this call badly wrong, and in doing so dragged his club into a situation not initially of their own making.
The consequences could yet be significant, as club sponsors this morning considered their positions.
Moyes will bear the brunt of the blame because he was left with the final say on whether Zouma should play at the London Stadium but the moral failure also belongs to the club for spinelessly refusing to take the decision out of the manager’s hands and effectively endorsing it.
As an experienced leader, Moyes should have made a different call but he is in a high-pressure job and was blinded by the need to win a match.
The Scot should never have been placed in a position where selecting Zouma last night was an option. David Sullivan, David Gold and Karren Brady all share responsibility for the decision and any subsequent fall-out.
To recap, on the morning of yesterday’s game, a deeply disturbing video emerged on social media of Zouma kicking and slapping his pet cat, accompanied by laughter as it was apparently filmed by his brother, Yoan, and in the presence of a small child, believed to be the West Ham player’s.
Zouma and his brother have apologised, with the France international insisting it was an “isolated incident” in a statement released to The Sun newspaper, who first published the video, but he has shown little contrition otherwise.
West Ham moved quickly, saying the club “unreservedly condemns” Zouma’s actions and “in no way condone cruelty towards animals”.
To start him less than 24 hours later made a mockery of the club’s position, with Moyes hollowly justifying the call on sporting grounds. “My job is to pick a team and pick the best team to give me the best chance at West Ham and Kurt is part of that team,” he said.
The situation is the latest example of football turning a blind eye to disturbing off-field behaviour in pursuit of on-field success — see also Raith Rovers’ decision to sign the rapist David Goodwillie last month — and adds to the belief in some quarters that the elite game exists in a moral vacuum. The message was clear: winning is all that matters at this level.
In another workplace Zouma would have been suspended pending inquiries, particularly as Essex Police and the RSCPA have launched a joint investigation into his actions. Moyes has assembled a likeable squad, led by the brilliant and approachable Declan Rice, and the decision also flew in the face of his own ‘no dickheads’ policy.
As a piece of management it was poor, sending a terrible message to the squad about the potential consequences of their behaviour and to the world on how seriously the club regards animal cruelty.
Zouma is essential to the Hammers’ push for Champions League football and you wondered if self-proclaimed “animal lover” Moyes and the club might have reached a different decision if a less important player was in a similar position.
Depressingly, Moyes suggested as much, saying before the game the video was not part of his thinking because Zouma is one of his “better players”.
In purely footballing terms, the decision was justified, with Zouma playing well as West Ham kept a clean sheet and returned to the top four. But the football itself was overshadowed as the away end booed the defender’s every touch and chanted ‘RSPCA’ and ‘That’s how your cat feels’.
A small minority of West Ham supporters applauded Zouma but most stayed silent. In the interests of balance, there is no precedent for dealing with animal cruelty in football, so admittedly it was difficult to know exactly how West Ham could or should have responded. Plainly, however, some kind of action was needed.
In playing Zouma last night, Moyes and the club have only made the story bigger and they will now rightly be judged alongside the Frenchman in the court of public opinion.
