Rani Abrahams Revelation about Richard Scudamores’ Sexist Messages: A Whistle Blower or Traitor?



Mr Richard Scudamore

One of the topical issues in the British media is the sexist emails sent by the English Premier League Chief Executive Mr Richard Scudamore to his friends. Among other contents of these messages include women are “gash”, “banged skinny big-titted broads”, and the irrationality of women is questionable. The public could have not known about these messages if they had not been leaked to the media by Mr Scudamore former personal assistant, Ms Rani Abrahams.

Ms Abrahams uncovered the sexist messages by Scudamore whilst accessing the Chief Executive private messages. It should be stressed however that she got this information through unauthorised access to the chief executive email correspondence with friends. This has raised a controversy whether the PA has done the right thing by leaking the messages.

For strong supporters of feminism the answer is yes. Ms Abrahams had done the right thing by uncovering the sexist attitude of the top man in the Premier League Board of Management. Sexism should not be tolerated whether it is in private or official communication. Anything should be done to stamp out sexism even though it involves unauthorised access to private communications between friends.

For people sceptical of feminism agenda, however, Ms Abrahams has gone too far by leaking the contents of private messages for which she was not entitled to access. In other words, she had breached the privacy of Mr Scudamore by looking into the chief executive messages with friends without authorisation.

These sceptics might be right. Mr Scudamore privacy was breached by the action of his former PA. Every person is entitled to the right of privacy in relation to private emails. It is not permissible for one person to access private emails of another person without authorisation regardless of the reason for accessing the messages.

The only time it is acceptable to look into private messages of a person without his or her consent is when the person is under investigation for wrong doing. The body empowers to conduct such investigation is the state agent, primarily the police. Ms Abrahams, however, was not a state agent who was trying to uncover any wrong doing by her former boss.

This assertion that Mr Scudamore privacy may have been breached following the revelation by his former PA is somewhat reflected by yesterday’s Premier League Board verdict. The Premier League Board held an emergency meeting yesterday to deliberate whether Mr Scudamore could be punished for his sexist messages. The board however found the premier league boss not guilty of the act. In other words, Ms Rani has done wrong by accessing her boss private messages.


This verdict may have also been a reflection of the sexist culture existing within the Premier League board. Most of the members of the board are males. It is possible that they share similar sexist views with Mr Scudamore. Therefore, punishing the Chief Executive for what many of them believe in is absurd.

The implications of Ms Abrahams revelation are far reaching. First, it will affect the relationship between male executives and their female personal assistants. Many male executives with female personal assistants will now begin to look behind their back when making certain comments. None of them will like to be exposed by their personal assistant. This becomes very important if the executives are anti-feminism and prone to make sexist comments.

Second, Ms Abrahams revelation about her boss sexist attitude will make it harder for male executives to have females as their personal assistants. If possible male executives will prefer male personal assistants to their female counterparts. This might hamper the efforts to breach the gap between men and women in the workplace.

Lastly, Ms Abrahams may have jeopardised her future career by revealing her boss private messages. Many men and possibly some women who believe that the course of feminism has gone too far in the wrong direction will now consider her a traitor rather than a whistle blower. If they are in the position to make the final decision about who to employ and she is one of the candidates they will not consider Ms Abrahams as the favourite candidate.

One thing for sure is that the way Ms Abrahams case has been handled would lead many female employees to be reluctant in revealing sexist comments within the workplace. No female employee will like to report a case that is likely to tarnish her career prospect. Thus, sexism will continue to flourish in the workplace. Should we allow sexism to go uncheck in the workplace? The answer may be no but the question is how can will eradicate the problem?