Intention is irrelevant at this point, it was careless of the 73-year-old to conduct himself in that manner.
If there is one thing more offensive than dishonesty, it is the assumption that the public will simply swallow a poorly constructed excuse.
Hugo Broos may not have expected his words to ignite a firestorm, but the outrage that followed was entirely self-inflicted.
ALSO READ: Bafana’s Broos refutes racism, sexism allegations
Referring to Mbekezeli Mbokazi’s agent, Basia Michaels of QT Sports, as a “nice little woman” was not a slip of the tongue, it was patronising, dismissive and sexist. Intention is irrelevant at this point, it was careless of the 73-year-old to conduct himself in that manner.
His comments revealed a mindset that has no place in modern society. The situation required a swift and straightforward apology. Instead, the South African Football Association opted for damage control, issuing a statement that attempted to reframe the backlash as “character accusations”.
That explanation insults the intelligence of anyone who listened to Broos’ remarks. The criticism was not manufactured, no one misquoted the coach and his words were not twisted. Broos said what he said, and the consequences followed.
It is therefore hardly surprising that the United Democratic Movement has taken the matter to the South African Human Rights Commission. Yes, Mbokazi was wrong to report late to camp and Broos had every right to criticise the player’s lack of professionalism.
That issue, however, is a convenient smokescreen. Player discipline does not justify belittling language, nor does it excuse an unwillingness to take responsibility for one’s conduct.
Claims that the comments were misrepresented are disingenuous. While Broos’ remarks on Mbokazi may not have carried racial undertones, as some have suggested, the Belgian coach still needs to be sensitised to South Africa’s history and social context.
Qualification to the Africa Cup of Nations and next year’s FIFA World Cup does not grant immunity. Sexism should never be waved away for the sake of success on the field of play.
The honourable response would have been to reflect and apologise. That apology was owed directly to Michaels, whose professionalism was undermined in a public forum.
OPINION: Salah is right to feel betrayed by Liverpool
As the national team head coach, Broos’ words carry weight and consequence. If he believes the Human Rights Commission will accept the hot air contained in the carefully drafted statement, he may find himself facing far more questions than he initially anticipated.
