Anti-racism campaigners have warned a “dangerous precedent” has been set after the former Crawley manager John Yems avoided a life ban from football because multiple instances of discriminatory behaviour were deemed to be “not consciously” racist. An independent regulatory commission chose this month to suspend Yems from the game until 1 June 2024, for 12 breaches of anti-discrimination rules. But in explaining the sanction the FA-authorised panel said they had opted for a shorter punishment because they did not believe Yems was being deliberately racist. The Guardian understands that such a consideration exceeded the terms under which the commission was supposed to operate. On Wednesday the FA released a statement saying that it “fundamentally disagreed” with the panel’s decision. “The FA brought 16 charges of discrimination against John Yems,” the statement read. “The independent regulatory commission decided on an 18-month ban for the 12 charges which it upheld or was admitted. We had requested a longer ban. Based on the evidence presented to the commission, we fundamentally disagree with the independent panel’s finding that this was not a case of conscious racism. As a result, we are considering our legal options.” Instances of Yems’s behaviour, which occurred over a three-year period between 2019 and 2022 and were found proven by the commission, included calling a player of Asian heritage a “curry muncher”, a Muslim player a “terrorist”, black players “Zulu warriors” and mispronouncing the name Arnold Schwarzenegger so as to sound like a racial slur. The panel, in explaining their sanctions, said that Yems’s case was “extremely serious” and that his behaviour would have demanded “an extremely lengthy, even permanent, suspension” in other circumstances. But a smaller punishment was deemed appropriate as they had “accepted that Mr Yems is not a conscious racist”. The anti-racist organisation Kick It Out condemned the decision on Wednesday. “The discriminatory language outlined in the FA independent panel report is simply shocking,” it said. “Given the seriousness of the incidents detailed, it is very hard to understand how the FA independent panel have concluded that ‘Mr Yems is not a conscious racist’. We do not share that viewpoint. “The behaviour outlined in the report must be called out for exactly what it is, racism and Islamophobia. To speak plainly, a 15-month ban given the severity of the 11 proven charges is a slap in the face to the victims of the discriminatory abuse detailed in this report and anyone who has been subject to racism or Islamophobia. “This decision also sets a dangerous precedent by allowing perpetrators to hide behind a ‘banter’ defence when intentionally using harmful and discriminatory language, and we will be in touch with the FA to understand how the panel came to their conclusion.” Yems’s lawyer described his client to the commission as someone who did not speak in a “politically correct” manner. In the written reasons for the panel’s decision, however, it is made clear that one of the players who had been the object of Yems’s remarks spoke to him about his “humour” while another was so badly affected that they feigned illness in order to avoid training. The chairman of Kick It Out, Sanjay Bhandari, told the Guardian that the commission had “dangerously” confused intent with motive. “Motive may be personal and subjective,” Bhandari said. “In law, intent can be direct or indirect. We can be liable for the things that are the natural consequence of our acts even if we did not directly intend them. “Nobody forced Yems to make his comments. He made them freely and consciously. They are comments that have a racist impact. Irrespective of his subjective motive, Yems consciously made racist comments. The panel’s conclusion he was unconsciously racist is not justified on their own findings.”