Roberto De Zerbi faced immediate backlash in his first interview as Tottenham’s head coach. He apologized for past remarks about Mason Greenwood, made when the forward played under him at Marseille. Supporters groups like Proud Lilywhites and Women of the Lane—both co-founded by the source author—publicly criticized his comments. De Zerbi insisted he never intended to minimize male violence against women. Greenwood had denied charges of attempted rape, controlling and coercive behavior, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm in 2022; the case was later discontinued.
De Zerbi’s decision to respond at all marks a critical shift. Silence from men in power on these issues perpetuates the problem, making engagement preferable to retreat. Yet his apology offered self-description rather than genuine accountability. In this context, that falls short. The controversy has thrust male violence against women back into football’s spotlight, raising a tougher question: why do so many men fail to recognize harmful behavior or stay silent when they do?
The ‘Good Guy’ Defense and Its Flaws
Research consistently shows that male perpetrators of sexual and domestic violence often displace blame. A 2024 review in Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, synthesizing qualitative studies over four decades, found that men who commit serious harm rarely identify as perpetrators. They attribute blame to victims, alcohol, unusual circumstances, or being “out of character.” Labels like “rapist” or “abuser” are resisted because they clash with a self-image of decency.
This explains why the “I know him, he’s a good person” response is both common and inadequate. Perpetrators are typically not strangers or monsters; they are people others know, like, and want to defend. Character references, however sincere, miss the point entirely. How someone acts in other contexts is irrelevant to harmful behavior.
How Harmful Behavior Gets Normalized
Male violence against women exists within a framework of societal norms that dictate what is seen, named, or ignored. The World Health Organization and decades of academic research point to these norms—not individual pathology—as the root cause. As researcher Michael Flood argues, violence against women stems from cultures that treat certain behaviors as unremarkable.
While most men are not physical perpetrators, studies show men are significantly more likely than women to view sexist comments, jokes, or banter as acceptable. That gap enables significant damage. Football is no exception. Dressing rooms are not neutral spaces; research in settings like the Australian Football League and UK football’s Football Onside program reveals that strong group cultures can inhibit men from speaking up, driven by fears of appearing weak, difficult, or disloyal.
The Blind Spots in Coercive Control
Coercive control, legally recognized in England and Wales, often involves behaviors perpetrators don’t classify as abuse: pressuring partners, monitoring movements, making them feel responsible for emotional states, or isolating them from support networks. Many men engage in such actions without realizing the harm, having never been taught to see it differently.
De Zerbi’s response illustrates this disconnect. He stated, “In my life, I have always stood up for those who are more vulnerable, more fragile. I’ve consistently fought and taken a stand to be on the side of those who are most at risk.” While breaking silence is crucial, his statement lacked what the moment demanded. Genuine ownership requires three elements: naming what was wrong in the communication, accepting that impact exists independently of intent, and committing unequivocally to not repeat it. Instead, De Zerbi offered a character reference for himself.
Research on perpetration and normalization indicates many men don’t grasp the impact of their words or actions because their cultural upbringing didn’t equip them to. This doesn’t mean De Zerbi is incapable of learning or change. True accountability involves understanding impact over defending intent—something absent here.
Football’s Unique Influence and Responsibility
If De Zerbi had made these comments in another industry, they might have gone unnoticed. Football acts as a lightning rod, reaching into communities, living rooms, and workplaces like few other institutions. What players, managers, and clubs say or defend shapes attitudes, especially among young men. Studies consistently show men are more likely to change behavior when concerns are raised by respected male peers. In male-dominated environments like football, peer influence is potent.
The uproar over De Zerbi’s appointment—fan protests, media coverage, public debate—wouldn’t have occurred outside football. This spotlight has pushed male violence against women onto sports front pages in a way policy documents never could.
What Real Accountability Looks Like
Stepping up isn’t about performative allyship or hollow solidarity statements. It involves smaller, harder, frequent choices: challenging a sexist comment in the dressing room, refusing to laugh at degrading jokes, being honest with friends about witnessed behavior, and listening when women express discomfort without defensiveness. Men with power and platforms must use them; silence from high-profile figures in football sends its own message.
The De Zerbi situation has generated intense heat, but beneath it lies a question football must confront seriously. It’s not just about who gets appointed, but what is taught, tolerated, and expected of men at every level of the game. This conversation was uncomfortable—and necessary. The real test is what football does next.
