Why the FA is Right to 'Strip' John Terry of the England Captaincy

Wednesday 9 February 2011 in Copenhagen. England are protecting a 2-1 lead in a friendly match against Denmark. With starting captain Frank Lampard taken off at half-time, Ashley Cole took the armband for the second half. However, at 83 minutes he too is substituted. He looks around, with his look of befuddlement even more pronounced than the one that usually adorns his annoying little face, unsure of who to anoint with the armband; for a minute or two, players hurl it round like a used condom found on the school playground, just wanting to get rid of it and hilariously pass it on to some poor unsuspecting individual (I'm bringing up some issues here). Eventually it settles on Gareth Barry. Poor guy.

For, you see, by that time, the England captaincy had changed from a proud title to a poisoned chalice. Amidst the armband tossing, was John Terry; the motivational centre-back, unafraid to take the game by the scruff of the neck, unafraid to place his body on the line, unafraid to sleep with his teammates' girlfriends... Ah yes. The natural selection for captaincy that night, and indeed most nights was John Terry. But in 2010 news surfaced that he'd been having an affair with the girlfriend of his then teammate at club and national level, Wayne Bridge. After much media (and, crucially, sponsorship) pressure, the FA and Fabio Capello decided to strip Terry of the armband.

The decision was greeted with widespread praise. Not was Capello standing up to one of his most influential players, it also seemed to establish a principle that players' off-the-field behaviour could, and should, be punished on the pitch. The England captain represents the people, the player kids pretend to be in the park, and for him to show such disregard for the success of the team and basic decency towards a supposed friend was incompatible with this duty. This was a recognition that, like it or not, the role of football goes beyond a match on a pitch, and that players have a responsibility to their teammates to show integrity, and their fans to be ambassadors.

After the Copenhagen debacle, Capello buckled. JT was back as captain. This important step forward in how we treat those who pull on the England shirt to represent the nation evaporated in a puff of smoke.

And then came today. John Terry stands accused of racially abusing QPR centre-half, Anton Ferdinand, brother of the man who replaced Terry as captain, Rio. The trial was initially scheduled to take place in February, but, as was announced this week is now to be suspended until July, removing the ability of the FA to put off making a decision on Terry's future until his guilt or otherwise was affirmed. However, with the date falling after this summer's European Championships, it became necessary for the FA to make a call on whether or not Terry would be allowed to continue as captain; they have decided, unprecedentedly, to suspend him as captain for a second time.

John Terry maintains his innocence, claiming that the video evidence showing him shouting a racist slur at Ferdinand forms part of a wider conversation in which he asks the player if he, mistakenly, believes that he has shouted such comments slightly before the camera lands on him (the plausibility of which I shan't comment on here). And he, his manager at club level Andre Villas-Boas, and many within the game have argued that we should treat Terry as innocent until proven otherwise.

Normally, that principle is one of the most sacred of our justice system. But selecting Terry in the Euros squad, let alone making him captain whilst this trial hangs over him, would be a truly atrocious idea. Firstly, there is the 'toxic atmosphere' in the dressing room, which Reading striker Jason Roberts this week suggested would be created; how can a captain provide unity to a dressing room when he stands accused of racially abusing one of his teammate's brothers?

More importantly is how this would change perceptions of the team amongst fans. Not only do Terry's comments alienate him and, by the tacit support that maintaining him as captain would imply, the team, from many of England's fans, it also unquestionably compromises the integrity of the England team's position as a social, as well as a sporting entity (a role that the FA accepts through their community projects, and sending their players on PR missions as ambassadors on these schemes). How could, for example, England players wear 'Kick It Out' armbands, admonishing racism within football, whilst Terry takes to the field?

Of course we cannot assume that Terry is guilty in a legal sense. But for the sake of maintaining the integrity of the national team and their good work off-the-field, and, to prevent the FA's embarrassment (if Terry were allowed to lead the team out at the Euro's only to be found guilty, there'd be so much egg on the FA's collective metaphorical face to even see the screeching cacophony of tabloid criticism), the right decision has been made in the interim. If he is found guilty, in order to maintain the valuable principle, that, especially at national level, ability should not be the only selection criteria, and for the aforementioned reasons, Terry should kiss goodbye to the Three Lions badge for good.