Fernando Mendes: Suárez ban? Villas-Boas would give 10 games | OneFootball

Some statements reveal more about the person making them than about the subject being analyzed. When Fernando Mendes says: “If it's André Villas-Boas deciding, it's for about 10 games,” the phrase lingers 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 an insinuation of influence on FC Porto that, without evidence, 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 gesture, 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 Sérgio Conceição's time 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 alone neither exonerates nor condemns anyone. It only shows how often public debate favors selective memory over coherent criteria. When convenient, everything is remembered; when not, it's quickly forgotten.

And there are more observations of the same kind: “I've seen Pepe at Alvalade punching Colate in the face, and nobody complained,” he adds. 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 brought into the discussion, it is rarely by chance.

Then comes the expression: “so much whining, so much whining,” reaching a real point of Portuguese football – the tendency to turn everything into a parallel battle, 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 this a contradiction? If there's 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, comparative measure, and easy target for quick insinuations. The themes change, the protagonists change, but the club's name is always ready to be invoked. Coincidence or reflection of the weight that 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 pin responsibilities on FC Porto that don't 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.