Monotheism and Referees

Referees are often given a hard time in contemporary football and this state of affairs may partly be attributable to religion.

In monotheistic religions, such as Christianity, it is conceived that a transcendental omniscient creator, God, exists over and above the products of his creation. This contrasts with pantheistic religions, which conceive of immanent gods, that is, deities who are an intrinsic part of the world. Christian belief also states that laws and ethics have been bequeathed to humanity by this transcendental all-knowing entity. Furthermore, humans were created in God’s image and are thus also separable from the natural world and the animal kingdom.

Since the Enlightenment it is argued that societies, particularly Western societies, have become more secular as science and reason have come to replace religion as a source of guidance. The influence of religion remains pervasive though, and it is argued that secularism is essentially a humanist reconfiguration of Christianity. Science and technology reinforce the Christian illusion that humanity is somehow separate from, and in control of, the natural world. Philosophy and ethics shaped by this Christian-infused Enlightenment still suggest that immutable laws and principles can be established which transcend the specifics of human interaction; but now these laws are derived from human reason rather than religious doctrine.

It’s therefore no wonder refereeing is such a thankless task in cultures shaped by monotheism! It is perceived that the referee should somehow be separate from the actual game of football, and thus enforce the rules in an entirely objective, infallible fashion. Mistakes by players are viewed as aberrations, but managers and fans actually see errors by the referee as some form of violation of the game. According to this view, the players comprise the actual activity ‘football’ and the referee should guide the game from an omniscient, detached vantage point. How often do we hear from managers that “the referee cost us the game” or “that decision cost us £Xm”? Perhaps it would be more appropriate to see the referee as an intrinsic part of a match and that, as a fallible agent, their decisions are as likely to shape the game as those made by players. Cultures shaped by religions which view God and nature as coextensive may actually be more accommodating of refereeing deficiencies.

Science and technology also present problems for the referee. Science underpinned by Christianity suggests that technological advancement should eventually eliminate error and mishap from the world. This means that pundits and TV viewers feel justified in passing judgement on referees without acknowledging the need to make allowances for reasonable human error: “Now that, for me, is a diabolical decision” states the pundit complacently as we watch an incident 16 times from a range of angles with super slo-mo and freeze-frame facilities. Never mind that the referee made his decision based on one snapshot, whilst having had to control 22 aggressive players and charge about a football pitch for the past hour!

So pause and check yourself during World Cup 2010 when you feel like screaming at the referee through the TV set – your feelings are probably just an irrational corollary of secularized monotheism.