Some of the things we teach our children - “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me” – are downright lies. Words do hurt and it is generally accepted that we have a responsibility to do something about offensive words and insults.

Uefa feels that way. Certain types of speech (usually racist or anti-Semitic, occasionally sectarian) are banned from football grounds. Clubs face fines and punishment if their supporters engage in them. Most seem to agree that this is only right and just. But it is worth looking at what constitutes offensive speech and to what degree footballing authorities (or even the legal system) ought to get involved.

The issue came to the fore last week, when the Italian FA held Inter Milan responsible for the behaviour of their Ultras, who displayed two “offensive” banners during a recent Serie A match against Napoli. The Milanese club were fined about £20,000 and ordered to shut down the section of the San Siro where the more passionate Ultras sit for their next home match.

However, Inter are appealing against the punishment. They argue that the kind of insults contained in the banners, while unpleasant, do not justify banning sections of their fan base. “Honestly, there are far worse things that go on, both inside and outside our grounds,” Roberto Mancini, the Inter coach, said. “Put-downs and insults like these have always been part of the game. Without a doubt, it’s not nice, but it happens everywhere, to fans of all clubs, and I don’t think it’s worth punishing a whole load of supporters who have nothing to do with it.”

Does he have a case? You be the judge. There were two offending banners. One read: “Naples, the sewer of Italy.” And the other read: “Neapolitans with cholera.” Both are references to the fact that unsanitary conditions in some parts of Naples led to a cholera epidemic in 1973.

The Italian FA’s verdict equates these statements to racist abuse, which seems a stretch, not least because Neapolitans are no more a different race from Milanese than Scousers are a different race from Cockneys.

Sociologists may suggest that such statements are offensive because their roots lie in age-old stereotypes based on ancient power relations. In this case the wealthy North of Italy putting down the impoverished southern city of Naples.

But whether it is racist or even just unacceptable remains to be seen. Liverpudlians are greeted with songs depicting them as thieves (“Always thieving, same old scousers”) and indigents (“You look in the dustbin for something to eat/You find a dead rat and you think it’s a treat”). Chelsea supporters get the “rent boy” treatment. Southern fans call northern ones “dirty”, while northerners call the southerners “soft”. And on it goes.

Is this the kind of thing we want to ban from grounds? Neither of the Ultras’ banners were particularly funny or original, but there is a long and rich tradition of witty and cutting banners and chants. When Empoli played at home to Fiorentina, their local rivals, Fiorentina fans displayed a banner that read “Where did you get your ground . . . ikea?”, a reference to the flatpack nature of the stadium. And a few years ago Juventus were greeted with “You’re uglier than the Multipla”, a reference to a people-carrier produced by Fiat, the club’s owners.

Both of those could be seen as offensive to ikea or Fiat, not to mention the fans of those clubs. The issue becomes where the line is drawn about what is offensive. A Napoli supporter took legal action against Massimo Moratti, the Inter president, as a result of the offence and “moral anguish” caused by the banners. Does he have a case? Personal offence is just that, personal. And yet Uefa and the national FAs have to legislate for masses of people, not individuals.

The fear among some is that by prohibiting banners and slogans we are heading down the proverbial slippery slope, when any kind of negativity – from the booing of players to the questioning of a referee’s eyesight – is outlawed. And with it most of the banter that is part of football.

It is hard not to see it as another step towards the antiseptic, sanitised, “football as just another form of entertainment” brave new world. Yet some feel that it is time that the nastiness was removed. “It was a brave decision,” Carlo Ancelotti, the AC Milan coach, said. “Why can’t we be more polite towards each other?”

The odds are, Ancelotti’s views are not shared by those fans who pay money to follow their clubs and who view those 90 minutes every weekend as an escape from the niceties of modern life. Either way, it is worth thinking long and hard about what we want our football grounds to be like.

Keeping it in the family: geniuses in the making

Many of those who believe that genetics is the prime ingredient in producing a superstar athlete are waiting to see whether Jaden and Jaz, the children of Steffi Graf and Andre Agassi, grow up to become tennis phenomenons. In the meantime, many in Argentina are getting excited at the prospect of another genetic match made in sporting heaven.

Sergio “Kun” Agüero, Atlético Madrid’s Argentine starlet, has reportedly been dating Giannina, Diego Maradona’s younger daughter. It is still early, of course, but if they decide to start a family, the chromosomes for footballing excellence are there . . .

Costly absence of the partying boys from Brazil

On Wednesday, Brazil made a triumphant return to the Maracanã, trouncing Ecuador 5-0 and putting on the kind of “ jogo bonito” show that the rest of us can only dream about.

After the match, according to reports, many of the players retreated to a Rio de Janeiro night club, Catwalk, where they partied until the not so early hours of Thursday (Ronaldinho, it is alleged, left at 11am). Still, that would have given the La Liga-based players – Ronaldinho, Robinho and Júlio Baptista – plenty of time, it would seem, to catch the overnight flight back to Spain (which left at 6.30pm), enabling them to be present (if not fresh) for training on Friday morning.

Alas, something went awry. Accounts vary as to whether they missed their flights or whether there were “unfortunate airline delays”. Either way, all three returned too late for training on Friday and were dropped this weekend. Without Robinho and Baptista, Real lost to Espanyol and Barcelona were beaten away to Villarreal in Ronaldinho’s absence.

Here’s a thought: a five-minute search on the web revealed that a private jet could have been hired to pick them up after the Brazil match and fly them straight back at a cost of about £80,000. A steep price, no doubt, but possibly worthwhile: those dropped points could weigh heavily come May.

gabriele.marcotti@thetimes.co.uk