Tottenham’s problem towards a seven-match ban imposed on midfielder Rodrigo Bentancur “missed” the offence his remark about team-mate Son Heung-min had brought on to the broader South Korean group, the attraction board listening to his case stated.

Bentancur made a discriminatory remark about Son throughout an interview given in his dwelling nation Uruguay in June.

He was subsequently charged by the Soccer Affiliation and was given the suspension by an unbiased fee on November 18. Two days later Spurs indicated they’d attraction towards the size of the ban, describing it as “extreme”.

Nevertheless, the FA introduced on Monday the attraction had been dismissed.

The attraction board’s written causes had been revealed on Friday and revealed Spurs’ barrister Jim Sturman had highlighted the participant’s apology to Son, and Son’s acceptance of that apology.

“We settle for that it is a related mitigating issue,” the attraction board wrote.

“However the comment was additionally offensive to the entire South Korean group and past that group. Evidently this factor has been missed.”

On Monday anti-discrimination charity Kick It Out stated it had acquired extra studies about Tottenham’s determination to attraction towards the sanction than it did over the unique incident.

“Most of the studies from the east and south-east Asian group and past informed us how indignant and upset they had been with the membership’s actions and the way it prolonged the ache for individuals who had been affected by the unique incident,” a Kick It Out assertion stated.

Spurs additionally argued Bentancur ought to have been given a lighter sanction as a result of the remark was “naive”, an “ill-judged joke”, was not premeditated and confirmed no hostility in direction of Son.

The usual minimal vary for an aggravated breach of FA Rule E3 is a ban of between six and 12 matches.

The attraction board agreed with the unique fee’s reasoning for imposing a seven-match ban – that it was on the “decrease finish” of the sanctioning vary however that it was additionally potential to envisage much less critical circumstances.

Sturman additionally argued that if Bentancur’s phrases had been written fairly than spoken, the offence would have fallen squarely inside the exceptions to the usual minimal vary and will due to this fact have attracted a ban of lower than six matches.

A fee can impose a sanction under the usual minimal the place an offence is in writing solely or by way of using a communication machine, and the place the fee believes there was no real intent to be discriminatory or offensive in any method and that the individual couldn’t moderately have identified that any such offence could be brought on.

The attraction board stated Sturman’s level was irrelevant, as a result of the remark had not been made in writing.

The attraction board added a postscript to its written causes to recommend the “in writing solely or by way of using a communication machine” exception to the usual minimal sanctions vary needs to be reviewed given the potential for social media posts to achieve massive worldwide publicity.

Bentancur’s remark got here in a light-hearted interview with Uruguayan journalist Rafa Cotelo which was subsequently posted on YouTube.

Requested if a shirt being held as much as Bentancur’s face by his daughter may belong to Son, Bentancur stated: “Or one in every of Sonny’s cousins as all of them look roughly the identical.”

Bentancur apologised by way of social media and in individual to his team-mate.

Son wrote on Instagram in the summertime: “We’re previous this, we’re united and we shall be again collectively in pre-season to battle for our membership as one.”