Even though there had been widespread calls for Zouma to be axed and even sacked by West Ham, Paul Merson wrote in his article for the Daily Star that he thought that the Hammers actions were understandable since they had already disciplined him. This is what he said:
“West Ham did the right thing playing Kurt Zouma even though that video of him made me feel sick…The Premier League haven’t banned him. Why should West Ham? Why should they make the rules? I don’t think West Ham had any choice. They have a once in a lifetime opportunity to get in the Champions League and he’s their best defender…You can’t punish the club for one man’s stupidity and if you’re David Moyes you have to play him and wait for him to face the consequences…If you’re the club, and you’re paying him a fortune, and you need him, and the police have taken no action against him – you need to play him.”
Not A Universal Position…
Merson has here gone against what appears to be overwhelming public opinion to back the Hammers’ stance. However, his point clearly has some merit. Certainly, his opinion is much more balanced that the Antonio stance, where he tried to compare the incident with punishment received for racism, since using the racism card is likely to polarise opinion, and possibly cause resentment, since racism is a problem that affects most of today’s modern society, and is not an isolated act of violence against a pet.
Zouma has admitted wrong doing, and been punished. Should his discipline continue indefinitely? He has been fined for the maximum amount by the club, and Football authorities have not exceeded yet what the club has done, so why should West Ham act unilaterally?
Whilst the issue is highly emotional, using comparisons with massive problems like racism, or telling West Ham to disable their own defence, when authorities have not recommended this, is perhaps a little unbalanced and excessive in our humble opinion.