46.5% Say Sanctions on Kurt Zouma’s Pet Abuse Are Reasonable

West Ham United defender Kurt Zouma recently made headlines due to a video in which he was seen abusing his pet cat. The video went viral, which incited public outcry from a society that demanded actions to be taken against Zouma.

Kurt Zouma kicking his cat definitely cost him a lot, both in his personal life and professional career. These included a fine of £250,000 (around $338,000), which will be donated to animal welfare charities. The incident also cost Zouma his sponsorship with sporting brand Adidas.

Furthermore, authorities took custody of Zouma’s cat as deemed the best way to prevent pet abuse from the football player’s end. Real Research — the online survey application, conducted a survey to know the public opinion on Zouma’s pet abuse and the appropriate actions taken afterward.

Highlights

• 80.38% say pet abuse videos are rampant on social media.
• 46.52% believe the £250,000 fine and possible jail time is reasonable.
• 54.57% want Zouma to take some time off before playing in professional matches again.

Majority Have Seen Soccer Player Kurt Zouma’s Pet Abuse Video

Most people have seen Zouma’s video, the footballer’s renown. In detail, 44.85% said that they have an idea of what happened, although they are not sure about the specifics. Meanwhile, 30.48% said that they were aware of the pet abuse incident. Only the remaining 24.67% admitted to having no knowledge about Zouma’s pet abuse video.

Of the respondents, 78.52% are pet owners. Specifically, 64.53% own a dog, 22.40% own a cat, 4.54% own a rabbit, and 4.08% own a bird. To add on, 1.78% own fish, 1.08% own rodents, and 0.80% own reptiles.

An overwhelming 80.38% of respondents stated that they have witnessed pet abuse either in person or online. This shows that the incident involving Zouma is not a rare event; it only went viral because he is a notable footballer.

62.27% Agree That Brands Should Not Sponsor Zouma After His Pet Abuse Video

The survey also gathered the public opinion if the sanctions West Ham imposed on Zouma were justifiable. In reply, 46.52% believed so, while 3.42% said that he deserves a harsher punishment. Meanwhile, 26.83% maintained a neutral stance, while 16.28% were not certain. Only 6.96% believed that Zouma had suffered more than necessary.

As mentioned earlier, the incident cost Zouma his sponsorship with various brands including Adidas. When asked whether this was reasonable, 62.27% nodded in agreement.

Out of those who agreed, 47.28% said that brands would be able to protect their image by canceling Zouma’s sponsorship. Likewise, 10.05% stated ethical reasons, saying that no pet abuser should appear in advertisements. The remaining 4.94% believe this will be a means to prevent further pet abuse.

Only 5.44% of the respondents felt strongly against the punishment, with 3.34% saying that this was Zouma’s first mistake and that it is too severe, and 2.10% questioning the connection of pet abuse with sponsorships.

49.25% Believe Harsh Punishment Is the Best Way to Prevent Pet Abuse

Finally, survey participants weigh in on the question of which approach is best to prevent pet abuse. Up to 49.25% believe that a strict approach is optimal, just like what Zouma is facing.

A close number of participants chose either strengthening the investigation or providing better education on raising pets. Specifically, 10.84% said the former while 10.92% stated the latter.

Then, 8.95% urge owners to take better care of their pets to prevent such incidents from happening while 8.50% say to revoke the custody of the pets. Lastly, 6.10% suggest for programs to help eliminate disrespect for animals and 4.43% insisted on the formation of social systems to keep pet owners in check.