The Suarez case: The Media Reaction.

Firstly, I apologise for the length of this entry.  I realise that it is far too long but in truth I could have written five times the amount that I have on the following subject. Below is my perspective on the way that the British media handled the Luis Suarez racism case.  It is broken down into 3 parts and while I realise that obviously doesn't make it any shorter, I hope it makes it a more manageable read!

The changing of the media's representation of Luis Suarez as a footballer.

From the moment he joined Liverpool last January until the Manchester United match at Anfield on October 15th 2011, Luis Suarez’ media coverage had been almost exclusively positive. It focussed predominantly on how magnificent his performances had been on the pitch and how he had been the catalyst in Liverpool’s resurgent end to the 2010/11 season. That all seemed to change when an obvious smear campaign was set in motion by Manchester United manager Mr. Alex Ferguson. After the game had ended Mr. Ferguson was interviewed by the BBC and Sky television. These interviews were quite surreal, even by his lofty standards. He went out of his way to slander Luis Suarez, claiming that the player had been “throwing himself all over the place” during the match. Anyone who has watched Suarez knows that, like many players, he does make a meal of fouls in some instances. However, during that particular game there were no obvious dives from, or flash points involving Suarez (the Evra argument aside) and behaviour-wise he was very quiet by his standards. It seemed stranger still at the time that Ferguson had chosen to attack Suarez and single him out for ‘diving’ in a game where two Liverpool players were extremely obvious targets for the same accusation.  Stewart Downing had clearly dived for Liverpool in the first half and Charlie Adam had gone down easily in a controversial move that directly led to Liverpool’s goal in a match that ended 1-1.  That Suarez received more criticism from Mr, Ferguson than Downing or Adam seemed strange at the time but it all seems to make perfect sense now.  At the time of the interview Mr. Ferguson knew something we didn't.  He knew about Patrice Evra's accusations of racism against Suarez and Mr. Ferguson had now also decided to attack Suarez character by essentially calling him a cheat.

In the immediate aftermath of these comments not one journalist or television pundit highlighted the fact that Suarez hadn’t been “throwing himself around” during the game.  Neither we're two British players who legitimately could have been singled out for diving, heavily criticised (amazingly, British players are rarely criticised in our media for play acting, diving and cheating, especially in comparison to foreign players guilty of the same things). Over the next month or so I was shocked and appalled with the U-Turn the media coverage of Suarez took.  He went from a player who was consistently praised to a pariah literally overnight.  The twinned accusations of diving and racism from United's highly respected manager and less respected captain were all the ammunition that our media needed to make Suarez their next villain.

After the Liverpool - United game, whenever Liverpool were discussed, be it on air or in print, it was a sure bet that a large chunk of it would be set aside to discuss Luis Suarez’ and his“cheating” ways. This was solely based on the accusations of United's manager.  If ever an instance confirmed the suspicion that journalists are terrified of and influenced by that good, respectable knight of the realm Mr. Ferguson, this was it. I vividly remember watching open mouthed as ex-Liverpool captain and former assistant manager Phil Thompson and the rest of the Soccer Saturday gang (prompted by the ever willing Jeff Stelling) criticised Suarez’ actions for nearly a full ten minute segment on Sky Sports News like a pack of wolves tucking into their injured prey.

It wasn’t just off the field that Mr. Ferguson’s comments had negative ramifications for the player though. Predictably, given the media’s focus on Suarez’ ‘diving’, referee’s barely gave him a free kick during the following games and whenever he was legitimately fouled commentators would still criticise him for ‘going to ground too easily’. Prevalent examples of this were Guy Mowbray and Chris Waddle. Mowbray attacked Suarez numerous times on the BBC during his commentary throughout a match at Stoke on 26th October.  Nearly every time the striker was fouled the commentator accused him of diving.  The most disgusting example of Mowbray's obvious contempt for Suarez came when the forward was clearly fouled inside the Stoke box but managed to stay on his feet instead of trying to win a deserved penalty.  He subsequently missed a goal scoring opportunity as he was off balance.  It should have been a penalty for Suarez but his decision to stay on his feet probably cost him and his team a goal.  What was his reward for behaving in an honest way?  What did Mowbray say to praise the integrity of the player in this instance?


"He stayed on his feet when there was contact.  That's not like Luis Suarez...."

You can hear this moronic commentator in the video below basically falling over himself to mention the negative perception of Suarez before the player rams his words down his throat if you fancy a laugh....

Chris Waddle, working as a commentator for ESPN repeated the words "Suarez has gone to ground easily there" so many times on 22nd October when Norwich played Liverpool that I thought he had developed an acute case of Tourettes.  I'd like it if that particular beacon of knowledge would educate himself enough in football parlance to understand that the word 'pelanty' doesn't exist before he is let back on our screens to impart his nonsensical ramblings in future.

Even opposing players began to take unwarranted shots at Suarez.  In the West Brom - Liverpool game on 29th October, Suarez was fouled inside the box.  It was a clear foul and an obvious penalty.  To Suarez' credit though, after being knocked to the ground he simply got up and chased the ball, not even appealing for a foul before the referee made the correct decision and awarded a penalty.  The fact that Suarez did not appeal and try to influence the referee or go down in a theatrical manner did not matter to West Brom player Paul Scharner though.  He came out with this sarcastic quote after the match:

'He (Suarez) is very good at winning penalties. He's one of the best on the planet, in fact. I had a good view of it.'

So even after clearly being fouled and not appealing for a penalty Suarez was once more being attacked (this time by his peers) for cheating.  The witch hunt was in full effect. Again, the media overlooked Scharner's slanderous comments, it was easier to write headlines like "Luis Suarez is a diver says Paul Scharner" as the Daily Mail did, simply adding more fuel to the fire, rather than condemning Scharner for his poisonous and untrue comments.  Telling the truth when it came to Luis Suarez wasn't a priority for the media at this time.

It was infuriating to hear this garbage being peddled week in week out and it was the first indication of what a spineless bunch of sheep the media representatives in this country would be when it came to all things associated with Luis Suarez. They all followed the new assertion  that Suarez was a diver and a cheat and no one dared to speak out against the unfounded accusations of people like Scharner, Waddle, Ferguson and Mowbray and call this for what it was, a witch hunt.

The only person who publicly stood up for Suarez over Mr. Ferguson's allegations was Liverpool manager Kenny Dalglish who released the following statement in a press conference after the racial allegations and diving accusations had been made.

This character assassination and smearing of Suarez’ as a footballer was only the tip of the iceberg though, what followed in regards to the racism case was absolutely astonishing.


The Media’s Reaction to Liverpool’s Support of Luis Suarez

Can you recall any high-profile case containing evidence which is so flimsy that has been reported in such a one sided manner? In the absence of any discernible hard evidence in this case it really does amaze me that the media haven’t examined the report and openly and objectively debated its findings for the public. They have simply jumped on the ‘Luis Suarez bad, anti-racist F.A good’ bandwagon and in doing so have condemned the player, his club and it’s fans for their reaction to the F.A’s decision.

Upon the release of the F.A’s initial verdict (before their report had been submitted to Liverpool Football Club or anyone else) Liverpool F.C released a hard hitting statement that basically blasted the F.A’s decision and pledged its full support to Luis Suarez.

In the warm up of their next fixture at Wigan, Liverpool’s players took to the pitch wearing T-shirts showing their support for their colleague. The message was simple; they backed their team mate and didn’t believe he was guilty of racism. The club and it's players received widespread criticism for this act.  It was an emotive topic and Liverpool's response was not subtle, that is for sure.  However, I look at it like this:

If my friend was convicted, punished and subsequently sentenced to a life time of hatred from almost an entire nation on the back of subjective findings when I believed he was innocent I would like to think that I would stand by him or her.

That is all Liverpool’s players did and yet this simple gesture has been described as a “P.R disaster” and condemned as “inappropriate” by pretty much every media outlet. Some journalists have gone as far as to say that the wearing of these shirts has given people the impression that Liverpool are enabling a racist culture at the club due to the fact that they are supporting someone found guilty of racism. How myopic can you be?

This just shows how much easier it is to tow the party line rather than discuss the obvious reasons as to why Liverpool F.C reacted the way they did. If Luis Suarez had been caught on television being obviously racist, thus confirming unequivocally Patrice Evra's accusations does anyone seriously think Liverpool Football Club would have done anything other than condemn and punish Suarez' actions? The reason they stuck by him in such an overtly aggressive manner is that they reject the F.A’s report and its findings and still firmly believe that Suarez is innocent.

Instead of letting people know why this case is so subjective as to provoke such an impassioned reaction from a football club of worldwide repute, our media simply chose to brand them as ignorant, stubborn and irresponsible. In the minds of the media and its consumers who were fed this one sided rubbish, Liverpool Football Club is now disrespecting and diminishing the fight against racism and has had its reputation tarnished.

Quite why respected sports journalists such as Henry Winter, Oliver Holt, Tony Evans and Patrick Barclay can't simply say that they disagree with Liverpool's stance but understand their reasoning is beyond me.  The general consensus is that Liverpool and Suarez should have accepted their punishment and released a full apology and pleaded for forgiveness.  This rationale is astounding.  Such a reaction from Liverpool would only have been warranted if there was literally no doubt that Suarez had been racist on October 15th.  That is not the case.  There is still a huge portion of doubt as to whether Suarez did anything wrong, so why the hell should Liverpool Football Club and Suarez get down on their knees and beg for mercy?  It would be an admission of guilt where guilt does not even exist and thus completely insincere.  The likes of Holt and Barclay can be found condemning Liverpool's actions on Twitter on an almost hourly basis.  Unsurprisingly they do not reply when I raise some of the points I have in this blog.

It's not hard to see why Liverpool are so upset about this verdict and why they still stand behind Suarez but none of the above journalists have put forward Liverpool's and Suarez' side of things. There has been a chronic lack of balance in the reporting of this case.  I feel it is their responsibility as influential members our of nation's media to let their readers know the reasons why this report is subjective and let people make up their own minds.  Instead they have simply taken the easy way out and repeatedly condemned Liverpool's reaction and left people thinking that the football club were obviously in the wrong.

The Media’s approach to Suarez after the F.A report

This bullsh*t began before Luis Suarez had even been found guilty (or even given his statement to the F.A for that matter). Some weeks prior to the F.A's verdict, the national red top, the Mirror published an interview with Mr. Alex Ferguson who, predictably made a remark about racism in football. Splattered next to a huge quote of “Racism is creeping back and ruining our game” was a large picture of Suarez and Evra as shown below.

Before the independent panel had even listened to the required witnesses or found any evidence, the ball was rolling. Suarez was being painted as a racist in the public’s eyes. It was an astonishingly inappropriate piece of ‘journalism’ and was sadly indicative of our tabloid press and also what was to follow.

Upon Suarez being found guilty the same paper released the picture below as it’s back page lead.

Bear in mind that at this point the F.A hadn’t even released its findings, nor provided any explanation as to why Suarez had been found guilty. Instead of waiting for the findings to see the light of day and reporting that he had simply been found guilty at that point, Suarez was immediately branded a racist in the eyes of millions by our media. As mentioned above, Liverpool Football Club swiftly responded with a statement that could barely conceal their disgust at the decision and begged the F.A to release the report so it could all be cleared up. They must have thought that when the F.A’s notes were released our press would be able to easily pick apart the report and indeed, they should have done.

If ordinary people like myself can see through the report for what it is (a stitch up) and cite clear examples that back that up then why have we not seen this from our ‘unbiased’ media? There are plenty of well educated football journalists in this country who could have sat down, read through the report, dealt with the inaccuracies and reported honestly about why they backed Evra or Suarez.  At the very least they should have pointed out the parts that infuriated Liverpool, thus showing their readership that this case was not as clear cut or one sided as they have subsequently made out.

The report almost begs to be dissected and debated. If I were a football journalist reading through this report I'd have been excited by the numerous debatable aspects of it and would have relished discussing it at great length.  Instead, all we got was a white wash.  The media's reporting on the case can be summed up by the Mirror headline above, such was the lack of detail or analysis that was put forward.  I find it a stain upon our media that such a case could be portrayed universally in such a disgustingly one sided manner.

Maybe the reporters couldn't be bothered to read through and dissect 115 laborious pages of F.A trollop at 6pm on New Years Eve (when the findings were finally released). Maybe they wanted their readers/viewers to see them as being totally opposed to racism and were worried of the repercussions for ‘taking sides with a proven racist’.  Whatever their reasons, our media failed its public in this instance. It's members took the easy way out, slandered a respected Footballing institution, it's manager, its fans and most importantly helped to cement the idea that Luis Suarez is a racist.  They failed to highlight the complexities of the issue with any real detail, they failed to encourage constructive debate on the issue of racism in football and they took the easy way out by relentlessly condemning the 'guilty' party and his supporters.

This was not a conspiracy between the F.A and our media to set out to hurt Liverpool Football Club or Luis Suarez, it was simply a combination of incompetence and cowardice which has ultimately shown the short comings in both our Football Association and our media.

I urge you to watch the following interview with John Barnes who sums up the issue of racism in football, in five minutes, better than our media did in 4 months.

Suarez Stitch Up

For as long as he plies his trade in England Luis Suarez will forever be abused with taunts of ‘racist’.  The following is an objective view on why the F.A we’re wrong to potentially ruin a players career with insufficient evidence.

First of all, yes I am a Liverpool fan.  However, this isn’t about personal loyalties or tribal point scoring.  This is about right and wrong and why the F.A and to an even greater extent, our media in the United Kingdom have done Luis Suarez, Liverpool Football Club and the general public a huge disservice in order to score points politically.

Before I go into some of the ins and outs of the Suarez/Evra case it is important to acknowledge the landscape of football in regards to racism when this case was investigated.  Sepp Blatter, head of FIFA and about as well liked by our F.A and media these days as Diego Maradona was in 1986, made some inappropriate remarks that seemingly played down the obvious severity of racism in our game when he claimed in November that ‘on the field of play sometimes you say something that is not very correct, but then at the end of the game, the game is over and you have the next game where you can behave better.”  Predictably, the English media and the F.A hit out at Blatter, demanding his resignation and hammering him for downplaying the importance of fighting racism.  Over the following week a media frenzy ensued about a remark that, while admittedly misguided, seemingly had no malicious intent and was just the work of a fool rather than a malevolent dictator.  Indeed, Blatter’s comments barely registered on the rest of the European footballing community and he duly apologised for his insensitive remark but this single quote inadvertently helped to seal Luis Suarez’ fate.  The message was clear from England, Blatter was trivialising racism and we weren’t going to accept that.  We are whiter than white over here (excuse the expression) and we won’t be having any of that thank you very much.  It was yet another stick with which to beat Blatter, the nemesis of England.

Thankfully for the F.A, on October 15^th just a few weeks prior to Sepp’s foot in mouth comment, a run in between Luis Suarez and Patrice Evra had given English football the perfect opportunity to show how anti racism it really was.  Patrice Evra initially claimed that Luis Suarez had called him a “nigger” on ten occasions.  A report was made to the F.A via Sir Alex Ferguson and Manchester United after the game had ended and suddenly everyone was rewinding their Sky plus to see if they could make out these disgusting insults that Suarez had thrown Evra’s way.  No one found anything and for a long, long time the F.A did not even charge Suarez which allowed people to believe that there was no proof and no way to corroborate Evra’s claims.  However, if the F.A thought they had missed their opportunity to show the world how moral they really were then they were wrong.  They were about to be handed a loaded gun from their prime target. 

Luis Suarez unwittingly condemned himself to forever being known as a racist when he gave an interview back in Uruguay where he honestly and rather naively broke his silence on the matter and explained what had happened between him and Evra.  He mentioned that he had called Evra ‘a word his friends call him’ and was seemingly perplexed by Evra’s reaction and accusation of racism.  That word was ‘negro’ which is used in Uruguay in many different ways when addressing a black man or woman and is often used in affectionate or neutral terms the way we use the word ‘mate’ or ‘lad’.

Suarez should have known better.  By that I don’t mean by using that word, I mean that he should have known to keep his mouth shut about what really happened on the pitch.  By admitting he used the word ‘negro’ he gave the F.A and our media something to get their teeth into.  If he had denied making any remark to Evra that made any reference to his skin colour then the F.A could have done nothing.  Because, here’s the brilliant fact that underpins this whole affair....the ONLY piece of evidence the F.A have to unequivocally prove Suarez used a term that they interpreted as racist is Suarez’ own honesty and admission of asking Patrice Evra ‘Porque, Negro?’ (why, black?). 

That’s right, despite the fact that it took over 2 months for the F.A to come to a conclusion, that is the sole foundation that their whole argument is based upon.  There is no video footage that supports Evra’s claims.  None of the officials on the field heard Suarez abuse Evra.  None of Evra or Suarez’ team mates heard a peep.  No audio recordings provided any evidence.  However, the fact that Suarez admitted to using a word that is used frequently in a none racist manner in the language that the two players were conversing in allowed the F.A to ultimately decide that he had used this word in a racist way on SEVEN occasions and justify banning him for 8 matches.

The way they reached this conclusion is quite staggering.  I assume that most people haven’t read through the 115 page report and know only what our media has regurgitated in it’s own unique manner.   If you asked every person who has called and will call Luis Suarez a racist so and so why they believe he is a racist I am convinced you will not get an answer with any more substance than “because he was found guilty” or at a push “he admitted he said negro”.  The Football Association’s ruling came down to one assertion, in the event of a lack of any hard evidence what so ever they merely heard Suarez’ and Evra’s sides of the story and plumped for the story that they believed to be more ‘plausible’.  Unsurprisingly but incorrectly they sided with Evra. Is it really fair to condemn a man of such a heinous action and smear his reputation based on, as they call it in the report, ‘probability’?  Frankly I find that immoral, but I digress...

Their reasoning basically came down to the fact that when cross examined with statements from Liverpool team mate Dirk Kuyt and Liverpool official Damien Comolli, Suarez’ story wasn’t 100% consistent.  Comolli and Kuyt had offered a slightly different phrase than the one Suarez claimed to have used.  While the F.A we’re correct to highlight these contrasting statements, they ignored two key factors.  First, Comolli barely understands Spanish (exhibited clearly in his testimony) and surely that places his own interpretation of events in more question than Luis Suarez'.  Secondly, Dirk Kuyt and Luis Suarez converse in Dutch, again things could quite easily be lost in translation as Mr. Kuyt explains in his testimony.  Either way, it seems an incredible leap of faith to take that due to a slight difference in the 3 testimonies it was acceptable to label Luis Suarez a racist for the rest of his career.  This becomes even more incredible when you take into account how many times Evra’s story had changed.

Evra initially reported to French media immediately after the match that Suarez had called him a “nigger” ten times.  When his manager Sir Alex Ferguson and the player himself informed the referee after the final whistle, it was claimed that Suarez had racially insulted Evra on five occasions.  By the time the hearing was taking place and after going through a tape of the incident with the F.A on three separate occasions (Suarez was never allowed to do this amazingly) Evra settled on the fact that Luis Suarez had said the word ‘negro’ seven times and not ‘nigger’ on ‘five’ or even ‘ten’ occasions.  To basically hang Luis Suarez on some inaccuracies from two non Spanish speaking representatives of Liverpool Football Club while ignoring the glaring inconsistencies in Patrice Evra’s statements indicates clear favouritism. 

There was a hell of a lot more bizarre justifying of the F.A’s decision in their report , too. They insisted that during the game Patrice Evra was not unduly ‘wound up’ or aggressive.  This is perhaps the most ludicrous thing asserted in the report.  The United captain argued the coin toss before kick off, demanded a yellow card for Liverpool player Stewart Downing in the first half by screaming at the referee, had two separate altercations with the Liverpool crowd, received a yellow card and had to be told to calm down in order not to get himself sent off by team mate Ryan Giggs.  To anyone with a pair of eyes and a brain, Patrice Evra had a bee in his bonnet all day and was aggressive from start to finish (indeed he started the argument with Luis Suarez with the classy comment of ‘your sister’s pussy’ after Suarez had committed a foul against him a few minutes earlier).  Yet the F.A actually draw the conclusion that he was not behaving in a reckless or out of control manner at all.  Even Ryan Giggs statement to the panel mentioned that he had to calm Evra down to prevent him getting a red card.  Again, staggering.  As is the glossing over of Evra trivialising racism by, upon receiving a yellow card, telling the referee “you only booked me because I am black” as asserted by Mr. Kuyt.

The report is littered with these ‘findings’ that heavily stack the deck in Evra’s favour and point to him being a ‘more credible witness’.  For example, it points to an ‘aggressive act’ from Suarez that even Evra couldn’t recall, when the two clashed (Suarez pinched Evra’s arm while they argued) that was pretty much irrelevant as such things are common place in football, as anyone who has played the game will know.   I could go on and on about my gripes with the report but if you require further reading on just why Suarez’ supporters are so enraged, click on the following link for dozens of examples where the report is picked apart.

http://forums.liverpoolfc.tv/showthread.php?t=289736

That is Liverpool fans showing up the F.A report for what it is. The vast majority are probably not educated in law and have no platform to vent their astute findings to the masses.  They simply apply common sense in deconstructing a subjective and unbalanced piece of information.

This is where the media comes into focus.  I will post my thoughts on the way the media have dealt with this case at a later time as I am aware that this ‘blog’ is fast becoming an essay.

The last words, for now, come from the Official F.A report.

"First, this case is not about whether Mr Suarez is in fact a racist. Indeed, the 

Commission will no doubt conclude that there are some indications that he is not. 

For example, Mr Suarez is himself of mixed heritage, it seems clear that he has 

experienced the diversity of life and it is plain from the materials submitted on his 

behalf that he has done good work in the field of community relations. Moreover, 

even Mr Evra says in his witness statement: "I don't think that Luis Suarez is racist"

Why Mayweather is willing to finally face Pacquiao.

For the first time, with absolutely no doubt, the world can say for certain that Floyd Mayweather Jr wants Manny Pacquiao.

During the past 2 years of speculation, public demand, law suits, claims and counter-claims, one thing was never truly known:  Just how badly did Floyd want this fight?  First he demanded random drug testing, Pacquiao declined and people accused Floyd of placing obstacles in the way of the fight.  Then he walked away from boxing for over a year, again he was being ‘chicken’ in the eyes of many.  Finally, he wanted the lion share of any potential purse with Pacquiao.  Again, with $100m to be split, it seemed churlish to most for Floyd to squabble about a 50/50 cut.  Another way out?  To most, it appeared so.  Mayweather was the one ducking the fight in the eyes of the public.  We will never truly know if either man was ducking the other but earlier this week Mayweather laid his cards on the table once and for all.

For the first time ever, via Twitter, Floyd practically begged the Filipino to meet him in battle.  The date is set at May 5^th, the MGM Grand is booked, both fighters are available, Manny has agreed to the random drugs testing and both seem fine with a 50/50 split of a monumental purse.  The biggest fight in boxing for the past 20 years is ready for launch providing Pacquiao can persuade his promoter Bob Arum to stop making excuses of his own and do the best for his fighter and sports fans around the world.

Since Mayweather’s tweet reverberated around the boxing world just 4 days ago Arum has gone on the offensive, producing numerous reasons explaining why the fight can’t take place at the MGM or on May 5^th.  They all appear weak and smack of desperation.  Bob Arum alone is now the biggest obstacle in the way of this much anticipated event.  However, say what you will about Bob Arum (and i could say many things), but he isn't stupid.  He is a business man and Manny Pacquaio is his prized asset that must be protected at all costs to ensure the big bucks keep rolling in for the foreseeable future.  He also, importantly, knows Floyd Mayweather very well (Arum promoted Floyd early in his career before a bitter break up some years back).  And there you have the real reason for this fight still being in doubt.

Arum knows that the unbeaten Mayweather doesn’t take risks.  Floyd can be as evasive outside the ropes as he regularly is inside them.  With the possible exception of the Oscar de la Hoya fight back in 2007, Floyd hasn't put himself in any serious danger of losing a fight through his choice of opponent in years.  The De la Hoya fight HAD to happen for Floyd in order to make him a cross over star and allow him to make tens of millions of dollars per fight.  It was a calculated gamble that paid off.  After his victory over the Golden Boy he became the undisputed face of boxing and a world wide star.  Since then he has fought Ricky Hatton, Juan Manuel Marquez, Shane Mosley and Victor Ortiz.  Hatton never stood a chance in anyone’s mind bar the partisan  British public's.  He was predictably dismantled by Mayweather’s superior skill set and even allowed Floyd to claim a rare knock out at welterweight.  Marquez, wonderful fighter though he is, was coming up from lightweight and his style was perfectly made for Mayweather.  He barely landed a glove on Floyd during 12 rounds of frustration and pain for the Mexican.  Mosley, while still having some pop left, quickly ran out of gas, understandably so for a man approaching 40.  He won one round.  And Victor Ortiz had only ever had a puncher’s shot at victory.  The skill discrepancy was so great that Ortiz resorted to using his head instead of his fists before 4 rounds we're even in the books. 

It is fairly obvious then, that since Floyd became a mega star he takes few risks when it comes to selecting his opponents.  He managed to avoid Miguel Cotto and Antonio Margraito as they ploughed through the welterweight division by going into 'retirement' and similarly there is no chance of him moving up to 154 to fight Sergio Martinez these days despite fans’ desire to see such a fight.   He’s as smart outside the ring when it comes to boxing, as he is talented inside.  So why, after 2 years of trying to avoid talking about the Pacquiao fight in public has Mayweather changed his tune?

In November Manny Pacquiao faced a 38 year old Juan Manuel Marquez who was fighting 2 weight classes above his natural weight.  It was the third fight in a controversial trilogy between the two men and the one that would finally settle the score.  The general consensus was that given Pacquiao’s rise through the weight classes over the past few years that he would prove how much he has evolved as a fighter and dismantle Marquez the way he had Cotto, Hatton and Margarito, much bigger men.  The first two fights had ended in a draw and a split decision but now it was expected that Pacquiao would finish off Marquez once and for all.  The only problem was that despite the weight and age advantages for Pacquiao, Marquez skills still allowed him to compete and (in most people's eyes but the judges) beat Manny just as he had in 2004 and 2008.  At the end of the fight Pacquiao wore the look of a beaten man and in his post fight interviews he was not exactly talking up the possibility of a fight with Floyd in the way he had previously.  Mayweather had probably made his mind up to finally fight Pacquiao by the time the final bell rang out in Vegas that night and here’s the simple reason why:

Marquez was so impressive against Pacquiao because of his style.  He is one of the best counter punchers in recent memory and that alone allowed him to overcome the physical advantage that Pacquiao had.  You know who is an exponentially better counter puncher than even the great Juan Manuel Marquez though?  Floyd Mayweather.  He’s also bigger, stronger and faster than Marquez as he demonstrated when he defeated the Mexican in an embarrassingly one sided shut out 3 years ago.  If an aged Juan Manuel Marquez could make Manny Pacquiao look so ordinary imagine what Floyd Mayweather believes he will do to the Filipino.

On the back of his poor outing with Marquez, coupled with his lacklustre showing against an over the hill Shane Mosley, Manny Pacquaio is now the underdog in most experts eyes when it comes to facing Floyd whereas in the past it had been a 50/50 fight.  Forget the hype, the squabbling, the negotiations.  If this fight doesn’t happen it’s because Manny, Floyd and most importantly Bob Arum know that Manny Pacquiao doesn’t stand much more of a chance against Mayweather than the other 42 opponents on Floyd’s résumé did.  If Arum and Team Pacquiao manage to wriggle out of the bout and deny us the chance to see the only true mega fight left in boxing, you can thank Juan Manuel Marquez for he showed us all what we had seemed to forget during the tedious Mayweather/Pacquiao circus:  Styles make fights and Manny Pacquiao’s style won’t defeat Floyd Mayweather. 

Over to you Mr. Arum.....