John Terry

On the 30th January 2010 many UK newspapers reported a legal landmark in the case of the English football team captain John Terry. Terry was due to lead his country to the World Cup Finals in South Africa later this year when details of his philandering were reported publicly disgracing him for cheating with a team mate’s estranged girlfriend. However, the most significant part of these revelations was the behind the scene efforts made by the £170.000 a week footballer, to try and keep the details secret. However Terry’s attempt to use privacy laws to stifle the freedom of the press to report his cheating behaviour was dismissed after a court battle.

Although Terry had desperately tried to keep the public in the dark over his infidelity and had initially been successful in managing to use human rights law to obtain a gagging order, this was eventually overturned in the High Court. Ironically as Terry had systematically and shamefully cheated on his wife and young children he tried to argue that he was entitled to a “private and family life” no doubt trying to build upon the successful action brought by Max Mosely.

The Daily Mail reported a series of alleged incidents calling Terry a seedy serial brawler, drinker and womaniser and questioning how he could be retained as a leader of his National side.(1) This view was also shared by others as the internet was soon alive with calls demanding that Terry should be stripped of his captaincy. Even fellow England stars, not always known for their family values, had reportedly privately condemned Terry for “crossing the line” and becoming involved with a team mate’s partner and mother of his child. By his own treachery and betrayal many believed Terry had forfeited the right to any respect or loyalty two qualities essential in any captain.

His agents had promoted John Terry as the perfect ambassador to “create effective brand awareness” and endorse products and services globally, relentlessly trading on his wholesome image. This marketing strategy paid off and Terry obtained several lucrative sponsorship deals representing a number of well known brands and he pocketed a small fortune in return. An e mail uncovered by the press reminded potential clients of what they would get for their money,

“John Terry is a British sporting hero. England’s football captain, Word Cup 2018 ambassador, Football icon, Dad of the year 2008 and voted as one of the World’s most influential people” (2)

With so much at stake it is hardly surprising that Terry’s highly paid lawyers fought so hard to keep his true character hidden in the shadows. So although Terry was a married man with two young children, and “dad of the year” he impregnated and then secured the abortion for the estranged girlfriend of an international team mate. In the best traditions of hypocrisy Terry then tried to use his extreme wealth to hush up his infidelities by going to court to protect a series of multi million pound sponsorship deals threatened by the emerging scandal.

For many the John Terry ruling struck a powerful blow against the increasing use of privacy laws used by the rich and the powerful to silence their critics and keep their bad behaviour secret. For the first time in a decade a senior judge rejected secrecy in favour of freedom of speech and the right of ordinary people to criticise the rich and famous. The privacy laws which were built up by judges and based upon the Human Rights Act, without endorsement from Parliament, made it risky to tell the truth about the wealthy and the powerful. Perversely many of the individuals who have rushed to the Courts to demand their guaranteed rights to preserve their “private and family life” have been destroying the same families they claim they wish to protect.

However in his landmark ruling Mr Justice Tugendhat effectively declared that the rich and the powerful should not be able to stifle the press from reporting their activities even if they were embarrassing. He said,

“There is no suggestion that the conduct in question (Terry’s affair) ought to be unlawful, but there will be some who suggest that it ought to be discouraged. That’s why sponsors may be sensitive to the public image of sportspersons whom they pay to promote their products. Freedom to live as one chooses is one of the most valuable freedoms. But so is the freedom to criticise the conduct of others as being socially harmful, or wrong. The modern concept of public opinion emerged with the production of newspapers in the 17th century. Before that there was no medium through which public debate could be conducted. It is as a result of public discussion and debate that public opinions develop.” (3)

In an editorial entitled “A great day for freedom the Daily Mail reported,

“The ruling that England captain John Terry can be named and shamed over his squalid love life strikes a hugely welcome blow against EU inspired privacy laws that protect the rich and famous from the consequences of their wrong doings. As Justice Tungendhat said when he lifted his temporary gagging order “Freedom to live as one chooses is one of the most valuable freedoms. But so is the freedom to criticise the conduct of others as being socially harmful, or wrong. In these times when society and the family are paying a terrible price for the breakdown of traditional values, other judges must take these wise words to heart”. (4)

The England, Fabio Capello, manager recognised that Terry’s behaviour exposed a flawed character that undermined the qualities that are necessary in a leader to command loyalty and respect. Capello stripped John Terry of the captaincy to preserve the unity of the team forged during the qualification for the World Cup Finals. In a meeting that lasted no longer than half an hour Terry was not offered the opportunity to resign or to argue for his retention as captain. Instead Capello told him that his position was untenable and that he was removing the captain’s armband. Capello is understood to have reached the view that the betrayal of trust demonstrated by Terry’s affair and the distracting publicity it had generated risked destabilising his team.

In a carefully worded statement Capello said,

“After much thought I have made the decision that that it will be best for me to take the captaincy away from John Terry. I have to take into account other considerations and what is best for all of the England squad. What is best for all of the England squad has inspired my choice.” (5)

Telegraph columnist Henry Winter said,

Fortunately Capello has taken a stand against declining standards. England’s World Cup chances have been improved by the welcome show of authority by the coach who believes that discipline matters off the pitch as well as on it. It has taken an Italian to remind to us that standards count.

Verdict: I concur with the views of Justice Tugendhat. Sure people have got the right to live the way they choose and as long as it is lawful nobody should interfere with that right. But, similarly, people should have the right to comment if the private behaviour displayed stinks of hypocrisy and is in stark contrast to the public image they are happy to cultivate for personal or professional reasonsoften translated into financial gain.
References

(1)“Legal Land Mark means John Terry can’t keep adultery secret” The Daily Mail (UK) Saturday 30th January, 2010
(2) “Dad of the Year’s squalid secrets” The Daily Mail (UK) Saturday 30th January, 2010.
(3)“John Terry gagging order lifted by the High Court” BBC News web page dated 30th January, 2010.
(4)“A Great Day for Freedom” The Daily Mail Saturday, 30th January, 2010.
(5)“Capello sacked his captain for betraying team unity” The Daily Telegraph, dated Saturday, February 6th 2010.
(6) Winter: Henry “Terry had to go after sullying such a great sporting honour” The Daily Telegraph dated Saturday, February 6th, 2010.