“I tried not to react to the referee and just concentrate on what was happening. I realized it was over the line and I think the way I carried on so quickly fooled the referee into thinking it was not over.”

That is not what he said, you might have gotten the translation wrong. What he said was: "I did not see whether the ball had crossed the line because I was completely focused on catching the ball. I then tried to continue the game as soon as possible."

Only later when he saw the videos after the game he admitted that the ball was obviously behind the line. I do not think he did the wrong thing. There have been far better examples, for example brazils 2-time hand goal by Luis Fabiano after which he explicitly was asked by the ref and lied to his face. See Video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5WhHdT3abA&feature=player_embedded

Dr. Singer,

Your characterization of the ethics of sports are completely wrong. The goal of a sports match depends entirely on the personal goals of those playing, and for a professional, it is usually to win. It is realized by the players that the rulebook itself is not how the game is judged; instead, it is the subjective interpretation of the game play by the referees. As such, there will be some "uncertainty" thrown into the match, but you agree to that by entering the match.

In many sports, a referee does not need to explain his calls and poor calls are irreversible (as was seen in a recent baseball game, when a pitcher's perfect game was robbed by a bad call; despite the ref's sincere apology, the call was not overruled, as calls are essentially never reversed in baseball, no matter how detrimental. I am also reminded of the 1972 summer Olympics men's basketball finals, when the USSR twice was given extra time on completely spurious grounds. The US protested, but their plea was rejected. They US refused the silver medal, and surely those referees involved had no future in US basketball, but that's how the judgement fell). But again, a player understands that when he steps up to the pitcher's mound.

Some sports have added instant replay in the digital age, because they see more "fairness" as being good for their game. But many have not, and those sports are implicitly condoning that kind of "uncertainty" in their sport.

Enough with the rules. A little bit of chaos thrown into a sport is good for it, especially if the players 

What makes this discussion interesting is that tolerance of cheating, in one form of another, seems to be part of the culture of football. Every time a player falls down in apparent death throes after a phantom foul, hoping to draw a free kick or a penalty card against an opponent, it's cheating. Deliberate time-wasting late in the game is cheating. Unconfessed hand balls, which occur frequently, are cheating.

The German team, which along with the rest of the universe knew full well that the Lampard kick crossed the line, could have gifted England a goal in the second half, or even scored a ritualistic own goal, to make up for the mistake. But it didn't--arguably, a form of cheating by omission, or at least poor sportsmanship. 

It's this kind of persistent unethical behavior that makes the game unattractive to North American audiences, who seem to have a stronger sense of justice on the field of play.

Yosh1, that is the correct translation but I am rather sceptical about his account of things. One can see his eyes clearly on the ball as it bounces over the line:

http://www.spiegel.de/images/image-104154-galleryV9-vewp.jpg  

You can even draw a straight line from his view to the ball if you like! 

I find it far more likely that he panicked and made the split-second decision to pretend that it wasn't a goal.

Dear all,

you can use live links by selecting the text and then insterting the link by using the fuctionality provided by the commenting system ( the "anchor" button ):

http://www.spiegel.de/images/image-104154-galleryV9-vewp.jpg

Depending on several factors,interpretation becomes subjective.I share some points in the article for example,"Players should not be exempt from ethical criticism for what they do on the field, any more than they are exempt from ethical criticism for cheating off the field – for example, by taking performance-enhancing drugs".However,the concluding line,"he is just another footballer who is very skillful at cheating," brings to question the author's goal .Is he here attempting to help resolve issues of ethical concerns to Football? or Is he here raising a vital question that needs deeper examination?My point is that the  question raised in the article is genuinely engaging.I appreciate the diverse and distinctive voices being raised  in this debate.

@Clawman - I agree. Cheating seems to be accepted, wrapped in the excuse that it's "part of the game."  What "beautiful game" accepts cheating?  The flopping, something North American's still fail to understand, does not help the flow of the game.

@Yosh1 - Neuer knew what he did. Fact. It's poor considering he's on the most watched sporting event in the world. Regardless of translation.

You need to throw colonialism analyis, economic inequality and culture into the equation. But that would lead us to discuss the universaiity of ethics. Anyway, This article explains it much better than I ever could: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/18/all_s_fair_in_love_and_soccer

An excerpt:

"The high inequality and lack of state welfare protections in Latin America means that the lower classes individually have to learn to be crafty to survive economically. This street-wise ability "to get away with it" is a widely admired economic skill in Brazil. (Rightly so, according to some scholars: studies show that in countries with unreliable business practices and low incomes, bribery can be an important way of keeping an economy moving.) By contrast, in England or Germany, countries with strong traditions of labor unions, players and fans learn that what counts on the field is the team's collective efforts, just as it always has in the workplace. These are stereotypes, to be sure, but not so egregious as to be summarily dismissed."

Re Yosh1 and others who have said that what I quoted was not what Neuer said:

I was quoting the UK Daily Mail, from here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/worldcup2010/article-1290124/WORLD-CUP-2010-Manuel-Neuer-admits-conned-referee-Frank-Lampards-shot.html

I cannot find an exact German equivalent of this quote in a Grman source, and so it is possible that this is a loose translation.  But the German magazine Spiegel has him saying the following:

 "Ich habe schnell versucht, nach vorne zu spielen, damit die Schiedsrichter nicht daran denken, dass der Ball drin war."

http://www.spiegel.de/sport/fussball/0,1518,703185,00.html

and it translates this in its international edition as:

 "I tried to continue playing quickly so that the referees wouldn't notice the ball was in."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,703315,00.html

Spiegel also publishes this photo that clearly shows that Neuer was looking directly at the ball as it hit the turf inside the goal line:

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-56440-3.html

See also the next two photos in this series.  Note that Neuer's eyes are locked on the ball,  Given that goalkeepers must have sharp eyes, it seems impossible that Neuer did not know, at that moment, that the ball was over the line.

And what he said, as quoted by Spiegel, supports the view, that he knew that the ball was in, and played on quickly so that the referee would not notice.  That is all I need to support the view that I took in the column, that his intention was to deceive the referee.

Peter Singer

Another interesting example of the prevailing ethical standard in soccer was shown in the press interview given by Diego Maradonna at the end of the Argentina-Mexico match. When asked by one the reporters what he thought of the fact that Tevez was in a forward position, Maradonna avoided giving a direct answer. Instead, he said that the referee had not pulled a yellow or red card when Messi was hit by Torrado, even though this occurred after the fact. He thus suggested that the first Tevez goal was fair play since it somehow was "compensated" by the referees posterior omissions.

Interesting concept. Players accumulate credits for fouls committed against them that the referee missed, and then they spend those credits with handballs, faked injuries, unseen head-butts, and uncalled offsides. Ideally, it becomes a zero-sum game, and justice is preserved on the playing field. Arena ethics.

You can find the hole equivalent here http://newsticker.sueddeutsche.de/list/id/1006892 (and putting the hole part in google shows a lot of hits) - the original interview is on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51raDFA_8Cw 

Two interesting parts about this: 

1. The whole phrase "Gerade bei der Doping-Kontrolle habe ich gesehen, dass er drin war." (Just now during the doping control I saw it was in) is missing in the english translation.

2. The thing about nuances: "...damit die Schiedsrichter nicht daran denken, dass der Ball drin war" does not exactly mean "so that the referees wouldn't notice the ball was in" but means - especially in the context of him stating he just saw the ball in during the doping control - "so that the referees wouldn't think the ball was in", as he himself wasn't sure.

At least a prove, that there was nothing like "boasting about cheating" in the interview.

So you can still call him a liar. Yes, I admit, the pictures make us think he had to see it. But who are we to ascribe this to him? Who knows how focussed a keeper is on the ball, without really looking at the line? Do you? I don't. And if he states, it was not before the doping control he was sure the ball was in - who are we to doubt that? Is "he must have seen it" really solid evidence enough to make him a person who cheats and boasts about it? letting him carry this reputation as "the one that cheated and boasted about it" for the rest of his career?

By any normal ethical standards: Nope.

I agree with the comments who pointed out that Manuel Neuer's comments have been inaccurately cited/translated in the English language press.  He clearly did not say he saw the ball was over the line, but only that he focused on getting it back into the game so the ref wouldn't think it was (he himself not being sure).  That is not cheating, particularly since the mistake the German defender made at Wembley in 1966 was to kick the ball out of the field following Geoff Hurst's infamous "goal" - thereby giving the referee (who initially and correctly thought that the ball had not crossed the line) the time to discuss with the linesman (who erroneoulsy thought it had).  Had the German defender done at the time what Neuer did now, perhaps one of the most egregious errors in World Cup history would have never occurred. All of which proves that in science it's useful to get the facts right before analyzing them and drawing conclusions - in particular when those conclusions amount to character assassination.

Thanks, Annie, for the information and links.  It seems that both the Daily Mail and Spiegel (!) mistranslated what Neuer said, and I was misled by the mistranslation.  I still think it is beyond reasonable doubt that he knew the ball was over the line, and deliberately played on quickly in order to deceive the referees into not awarding a goal.  But I withdraw the claim that he boasted about it.

Peter Singer

Hello all,

I really enjoyed the post and the comments. I would add that, since this is essentially showbiz, the ethics of the players are driven by those of the spectators.

In the long run, if referee error is impartial, then all potential cheaters face the same gamble - it is no longer a matter of ethics, but of strategy and skill.

The real issue is that this incentive scheme yields an optimal skill-set which is not the one that fans allegedly want to see. However, it is clear that most fans (and thus players) prefer to see their teams win with "cheating skills" than not win at all.

A simple way to deal with the issue is entirely technical: allow video replays to be consulted before final referee decisions are made. This essentially makes enforcement near-perfect and would have prevented any of the above incidents. It would also have the advantage of closing the gap between what people say they want and what they actually want.

This is a very interesting piece, professor Singer. I came to read it translated into Spanish in a Chilean newspaper. Two brief comments: first a general one; and second, something related to your topic.

First, and as a football fan, I would say that as long philosophy, ethics, mathematics and technology keeps away from football, the better. Every time the FIFA “innovates” borrowing from sciences, arts, or whatever at hand, it only ends denaturing football as we know it.

Second, and concerning your article, I have a strong disagreement with what you are saying—at least at an evaluative level. In fact, in opposition to what you suggested, I think ethical criticism exists in football. Take for instance the same case of Henry. After the November game Henry himself declared that he was sort of afraid of going out, because people looked at him condemning his act (I’m deeply sorry about this, but I couldn’t find the piece where he said this). In a Barcelona match right after that very same game, the whole crowd disapproved his act by booing every time he touched the ball. And, finally, in spite of the fact he was taken to the World Cup, he was relegated to secondary positions—indeed he was not part starting lineup—precisely after that game. Would you consider these examples—as I’m inclined to do—ethical criticism?

In the case of the ENG/GER referee ethical criticism has lead to professional consequences, as he has been thrown away from the World Cup.

Kind regards,

Domingo

Forgive me for breaking in, Domingo, but I can't quite see how football would be "denatured" by trying to bring greater fairness to the sport, as long as a) it doesn't unduly interrupt the action, and b) the technology is used to help, rather than undermine, the referee's decision-making. As in all other sports, technology is a tool that, used wisely (as in tennis), enhances the game, and produces a fairer result. 

Cheating, and egregious mistakes, harm the game and its players. Yes, Henry paid a personal price for his action, but Ireland paid a far greater price. And the French team paid the price too, for their lack of sportsmanship in not forfeiting an unfair result. As for the professional consequences to the referee in the ENG/GER game, he would NOT have suffered those consequences if he had the help of instant goal replay.  EVERYBODY would have benefited--players, officials, fans, and the integrity of the sport itself.

Clawman, I assume this to be a public debate so welcome in—indeed I’m the new one posting here. My whole point regarding Henry was trying to show that ethical criticism exists in football, and that criticism is triggered when a football player does not act fairly—as occurred with the French striker. I must insist that the only idea of ethical criticism shows formal rules are not the unique standard to consider—thought the former is normally caused by a breach of the latter.

Are there other standards? Yes, those created by player themselves within the formal rules—rules or principles created by the “community of players” (a sort of internal viewpoint). If you like football or if you play it, you may know these rules are called “codes of football,” normally accompanied by the canonical “what happens in the field, stays in the field,” and similar says (though I’m translating from Spanish so not sure if these are the most happy expressions to explain my point). This may explain why football players are reluctant to have learned opinions pointing at the way the “game” should be modified (improved, etc.) The same occur in politics, where several practices had been created and developed by those who take part in it—of course within the constitutional rules that establish the processes according to which you can enact a law.

About technology, how exactly would you incorporate it football? I mean, what would you propose in order to a) not unduly interrupt the action [and without giving FIFA the chance to use that time to profit from more, and more, and more advertisings while, say, we review the images] and b) not undermine the referee’s decision—let alone not replacing her.

Best,

D.

Domingo, here's one or two ideas how unobtrusive technology could work without slowing down the game, or trivialising the role of the referee. The TV audience gets the benefit of instant replay on all the action on the field. Surely a "replay"official could get the same replay, instantaneously, near the field. If the referee has any doubts about a disputed offside, of whether the ball crossed the goal-line, or even if there was a particularly hard fall, and was the player "diving" or not, he could communicate with the "replay" official, over headphones, and request clarification, and get a ruling instantaneously. There need be little or no delay, surely less of a delay than when players protest a decision, or fall down on the field in a feigned injury, or engage in other unsportsmanlike time-wasting. 

This could also have the effect of reinforcing the so-called "codes of football" by allowing for fewer violations, like Maradona's famous Hands of God goal, which has passed into legend--the kind of "legend" that shames the game and the people who play it, because it is a glorification of base cheating.

With a lot of interest I read your great article in the newspaper published recently in Namibia. Besides the very good content and the main message – which I fully support – my attention was also caught by the literal quote of the German goalkeeper Manuel Layer in which he states: “I realized it was over the line and I think the way I carried on so quickly fooled the referee into thinking it was not over.”

Seeing the rapidly moving ball bouncing of the crossbar during the game and the twist of the goalkeeper made me wonder how the goalie actually could have judged whether the ball was in or not. During my research on the Internet and by listening to all the after-game interviews, I couldn’t find a clear statement of Manuel Layer as mentioned in your text. The German goalkeeper only admits in the interview that during the doping test (which took place after the game) he saw the replay and then knew it had been over the line.

Thus the quote might be a crucial mistranslation in a wrong context. (German is my first mother language.)

It would be a great pity if this splendid text about the importance of honesty, ethics and rights would have untrue words in it…

Soccer has sadly really become a dishonest game for a lot of players but the charge on the young German goalkeeper – who could have set things right – might be wrong.

Otherwise thank you for the very expressive article.

Your only mistake in the article ws the statement that "by normal ethical standards what X did was wrong"

The referee has the job of refereeing, there is no law in soccer that says a player must acknowledge a goal or infrngment by a team mate or an error by the referee.

There are however rules against simulation and hand ball and tackles from behind and these are regulalry breached as professional fouls - the advantage to be gained is or might be far greater than the punishment if the offence is detected.

The ehtics of Maradonna's "hand of God" goal might be a better example for your argument.

Dear Dr Singer,

Thank you for an excellent and engaging article. My only point of departure is your criticism of Neuer alone. It is really FIFA that should come under the lens.

I do agree with a reader's comment that overall a referee's favourable and unfair calls against a team ought to cancel out and I guess they do e.g. Lampard's stolen goal vs. Geoff Hurst's phantom goal. That's why the real question is to FIFA - How is what happened in 1966 still happening in 2010?

Perhaps English fans will find some consolation that Germany's Mesut Ozil was denied a penalty despite a clear foul in the penalty box in the dying seconds of first-half against Spain. What goes around comes around...

Aanchal.

The problem in soccer is that in sudden death elimination matches the referee's mistakes don't often even out in goals. A penalty wrongly granted late in the game, or a send off early in the game often change what many would expect would otherwise have been the out come of the game.

Off sides and penalties could easily be subject to video verification for all world cup matches and tournaments of similar standing. After a few penalties were reviewed and reversed with a free kick the other way and a yellow card for the offending simulator (diver) this cheating would likely virtually stop.

If on review the penalty were not warranted the defenders would get a fee kick, if the offside resulted in a goal or corner kick then if the attacker was offside the goal woould be disallowed and the free kisk awarded, if no goal was scored or corner conceded before the ball returned to the attackers half the play would continue.

FIFA's reluctance is a disgrace and corrupting.

Professor Singer. I think there's something about human nature that you don't understand or at least you don't translate it in to your analisys. There's no ethics. Ethical actions only exist for fear of the consequences wether they consist in legal action if the action is illicit, or in criticism by society if they are no illicit. Since footbal (or soccer) is not suposed to be ethic because nobody expects it to be so, ethics are not a part of the game. Would Neuer have admitted the goal and not tried to get away with cheating he would be the mock of fans and he probably would not play again for the german team.

Footballer are suposed to win games not be ethical if that means losing them.

PF1, I disagree in the strongest terms . . . An ethical standard is vitally important in a game that attracts billions of fans. Look at how South African fans reacted every time Suares of Uruguay touched the ball in Saturday's consolation game. They, and many more viewers, will not soon forget how his handling of the ball against Ghana advanced his team, and eliminated Ghana--an act that many see an an ethical lapse. In the final analysis, international athletes will be judged by their individual actions; the German goalie admitting the goal should have counted, or Saures admitting that what he did was wrong, would have made a very great difference in how they are perceived, as conscientious individuals.

The Netherlands and De Jong say "Yes!"

Which is the only country to defeat Spain in the World Cup? Why, it's Switzerland. Surely, then, the Swiss deserve consideration as the world's leading soccer nation.

Which is the only country to defeat Spain in the World Cup? Why, it's Switzerland. Surely, then, the Swiss deserve consideration as the world's leading soccer nation.

Clawman. Suarez was seen as a hero in Uruguay. Remember Ghana was the last remaining african team playing. Had a Ghana player won the game against Uruguay the same way Suarez did for his country, he would be a hero and South African fans would cheer him.

Just look at how Argentina considers Maradona. A very great player indeed but not exactly a model on ethics. His popularity is undisputable in Argentina.

Or look at Zidane. An example of ethics in football on the worst possible sense. He won the title of best player (golden ball) from FIFA, no less, after doing what you can see on the link below on the final of the world cup 2006. And he is still admired and caleed as Zizou by the french. I addmit some of them may not like him, but not most.

I'm not making a personal judgement, I personaly consider there should be much more ethics involved in footbal or in any sport considering the educational side of it. My analysis is on reality. What "is" is rather different from what "should be". Sport on the highest levels of competition is not sport anymore, it is a highly profitable business.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tikIo3kaDcM&feature=related