Fernando Mendes: Suárez would get 10 games if Villas-Boas decides | OneFootball

Some statements reveal more about the person making them than about the subject being analyzed. When Fernando Mendes says: “If André Villas-Boas is the one deciding, it’s for about 10 games,” the phrase hangs in the air with that tone of a TV comment seeking immediate impact. Impact is not an argument. And amidst the noise, it’s worth remembering the essential: André Villas-Boas is the president of FC Porto, not the authority that determines disciplinary sanctions in Portuguese football.

This is where the phrase deserves scrutiny. “If it’s André Villas-Boas and people connected to football like Porto, 10 games,” adds Fernando Mendes, projecting onto FC Porto an insinuation of influence that, without proof, mainly serves to fuel the usual folklore. The question arises: does mentioning FC Porto continue to be, for many, the quickest way to inflame a debate?

The commentator himself then tries to moderate: “He did it, he shouldn’t have done it. Period. He will be punished.” This part, in its simplicity, is the most sensible. If there was a punishable act, there will be a sanction. That’s how it should work. The problem arises when the analysis leaves the facts and enters the realm of suggestion – the automatic association with the name of FC Porto and the old inclination to involve the club in any controversy, even when the connection seems more rhetorical than factual.

Fernando Mendes insists on another note: “I’ve seen this during the time of Sérgio Conceição in football like Porto, I’ve seen this countless times.” But what exactly does this comparison prove? That there have been similar episodes in the past of Portuguese football? That, in itself, neither absolves nor condemns anyone. It merely shows how often public debate favors selective memory over coherent criteria. When convenient, everything is remembered; when not, it is quickly forgotten.

And there are more observations of the same kind: “I’ve seen Pepe in Alvalade punching Colate in the face, and no complaints were made,” he says further. We return to a controversial logic. If at other times there was a lack of consequences or less incisive reactions, does that justify repeating the mistake? Wouldn’t it be more useful to demand uniformity, serenity, and less media exploitation? FC Porto knows this context well: when it is called into discussion, it is rarely by chance.

Then comes the expression: “so much whining, so much whining,” reaching a real point of Portuguese football – the propensity to turn everything into a parallel battle, a public process, and media pressure. Curiously, while criticizing this environment, Fernando Mendes again places the name of André Villas-Boas and FC Porto at the center of suspicion. Isn’t that a contradiction? If there is already too much noise, why add more noise?

Essentially, the comment reveals an old media habit: FC Porto continues to function as an obligatory reference, a comparative measure, and an easy target for quick insinuations. The themes change, the protagonists change, but the club’s name always emerges ready to be invoked. Coincidence or a reflection of the weight FC Porto maintains in national football, even when some prefer to approach it through shortcuts?

What really matters is distinguishing opinion from fact. If there was an infraction, let it be decided according to the rules. Without theatrics, without ghosts, and without trying to attach to FC Porto responsibilities that do not belong to it. The club doesn’t need clichés to assert itself: its history, its demands, and the strength of an institution that has never left anyone indifferent are enough.

This article was translated into English by Artificial Intelligence. You can read the original version in 🇵🇹 here.