Enzo Fernandez’s tenure as captain of Chelsea was marked by a lack of sensitivity, clumsiness, and incorrect decision-making.

A month ago, Fernandez was accused of displaying ‘unrestrained racism’ by his Chelsea teammate, Wesley Fofana. He served as the captain of the defenders in the Premier League on Sunday.

Upon receiving the Chelsea armband, Enzo Fernandez did not elicit any significant response from the rest of the team, leading manager Enzo Maresca to believe that the issue was resolved. When questioned after the 2-0 defeat to Manchester City whether he should have awarded Fernandez the captaincy, the new Italian manager believed it was not worth elaborating on.

Subsequently, Fernandez was compelled to offer apologies to his Chelsea colleagues following the release of a video in which he was heard uttering racial and homophobic comments directed towards members of the French team during Argentina’s Copa America celebrations. Maresca highlighted Fernandez’s prior appointment during the summer.

“I can observe that his teammates acknowledge him as a captain,” the manager stated. “He has already been appointed as the captain during the pre-season.” It is crucial to acknowledge our mistakes when we commit them. Enzo completed the task, and ultimately, it is now concluded.

Maresca stated, “I have made errors in the past and I acknowledge that if you, as a human being, make a mistake and admit to it, you should not be condemned indefinitely.”

While it is possible for all of those statements to be accurate, the fundamental problem with this dispute is that it does not logically justify immediately assigning a player implicated in such a narrative one of the most crucial positions inside a club. While the post of club captain may not hold the same significance as it once did, it is still a position of importance for Fernandez, albeit temporarily due to the injury of first-choice captain Reece James. Maresca’s debut game is a remarkable achievement. That is also the reason why his words come across as insensitive, with the decision being oblivious to larger consequences.

Prior to considering Fernandez’s suitability for the role, it is important to acknowledge that he is now under investigation by Fifa about the incident. This alone should have disqualified him from being considered for the position. For some individuals, this decision was primarily driven by their desire to maintain a certain image. However, it may be argued that this decision was, at most, lacking foresight and executed in a sloppy manner.

Therefore, the sentiments of the Chelsea players on this matter are not truly significant. Even when considering only those conditions, it is exceedingly uncommon – perhaps even unusual – for a player to be appointed as captain so swiftly after having to apologise to teammates for a scandal. This occurrence in football is maybe unprecedented. That fact alone is unexpected. However, despite the absence of any recognised doubts inside the team, this is actually about a larger issue.

Chelsea is a club that has made significant and highly commendable efforts in combating racism over the last twenty years. The kit worn by Fernandez on Sunday is being sold with a design called the “melting pot” pattern, which symbolises the vibrant cultural diversity of London and the passionate and diverse global community associated with the club.

Once again, it is a striking sight. Subsequently, an image emerged of Fernandez and the entire team kneeling, as a few individuals at Stamford Bridge expressed their disapproval through audible boos.

The most negative interpretation of this situation would be that football is merely paying lip service to these significant societal matters, mostly due to their corporate image, but then taking a different course of action when it comes to the financial aspect of the sport. This is a narrative that has been often witnessed in the Premier League.

Once again, it is important to emphasize that this does not imply that Fernandez should be removed or anything like. There is no justification for “punishment”, as Maresca proposed. This pertains to the decision of refrain from associating oneself with a highly debated issue, given the esteemed position one holds as a representative of the organization.