There are bigger fish to fry than his tongue action, but details like these are crucial for a complete understanding of the enigma that is Mark Clattenburg.

 

Last week, he was interviewed on NBC’s popular Men In Blazers podcast. The hosts themselves have always maintained a funny fascination with Clatts, so his appearance on their program was a kind of journalistic destiny. He was asked about his particular style of refereeing, which led him to drop a bombshell about a high-profile game he presided over at the end of the 2015-2016 season:

 

“There's one game in particular, which was the ‘Battle of Stamford Bridge.’ It was Chelsea vs. Tottenham; it was the famous year Leicester won the title, it was theater. I went in with a game plan that I didn't want Tottenham Hotspur blaming Mark Clattenburg that they were going to lose the title.

 

It should've been three red cards to Tottenham; I allowed them to self-destruct, so all the media, all the people in the world went, ‘Tottenham lost the title.’ If I sent three players off from Tottenham, what's the headline? ‘Clattenburg lost Tottenham the title’ — it was pure theater that Tottenham self-destructed against Chelsea and Leicester won the title.”

 

He was then asked if his actions “scripted” the game:

 

“I helped the game — I certainly benefited the game with my style of refereeing. Some referees would have played by the book, and Tottenham would have been down to seven or eight players and probably lost. Tottenham would've been looking for an excuse, but I didn't give them an excuse, because my game plan was let them lose the title.”

 

Anyone who watched the game will attest that Tottenham should’ve had at least a couple of red cards and been left with nine men on the field. As the match hit its climax, challenges came flying in from both sets of players, but Spurs’ Eric Dier and Moussa Dembele were both clear repeat offenders.

 

Clattenburg repeatedly mentions “theater.” The truth is that the match was an absolutely enthralling one - a Premier League classic. But, there’s a massive problem with Clattenburg’s approach: soccer is a game with rules.

 

There is room for interpretation within the bounds of these rules; referees are responsible for judging whether challenges and tackles are fair or foul. The issue with his revelations is that Mark Clattenburg fully understood that the actions of some Tottenham players deserved red cards, yet decided not to give them in the interest of the game’s “theater.”

 

An even more disappointing part of this equation is Clattenburg’s mention of his own name in his theoretical headlines – “Clattenburg lost Tottenham the title” – as expressed in the above quote.

 

Referees in any sport should never be officiating a contest with the interest of their own personal reputations in mind. Referees are completely at the mercy of the game, for better or worse. They don’t decide the rules, they obey the rules.

 

In the minds of Chelsea fans, Clatts’ comments have brought questions about what would’ve happened had one of their team’s players been seriously injured. The fouls committed by Spurs players were obvious and repetitive.

 

From a Tottenham perspective, a red card or two would have meant a change in playing style. The team likely would’ve set up to defend its lead, leaving less attacking space for Chelsea. Would Chelsea have scored the eventual tying goal that gave Leicester City the historic title?

 

Clattenburg now applies his trade in Saudi Arabia, where he accepted a big-money position as the head of refereeing for the country’s domestic league. In my own opinion, the Premier League still provides more than enough theatrical value without Mark Clattenburg writing the script.