His fine isn't really huge if you think about it though. I mean yes, when you consider football associations are fined about 10k when their fans are racist it is, but if you think that a fine has to be a message and a deterrent to the player then it has to be related to salary. For most people you'd be paying legal costs + opponents costs + whatever the 'penalty' is, and in the case of most employers, the fact you've been accused and prosecuted and let off on a technicality would likely void you for employment under internal employer rules, and were you incarcerated you'd still have to pay to maintain your assets etc. If you view what was effectively two weeks fine as all it was, then it was rather meagre.
If you look it another way, it was two weeks wages he was fined, effectively. I realise its difficult to forget the sum is thousands of pounds, but if you consider a punishment actually has to punish the individual, has to act as a deterrent.. then really how significant is this? It may have been the largest fine thus far, but what does that mean in terms of punishment? If I am found guilty of inappropriate behaviour, assuming I'm a hedge fund manager or somesuch, and my employer fines me 1m for racism it may be the largest fine ever for racism, but for me, it's just a drop in the ocean as I'm paid upwards of 30m a year (in the case of that particular role).
Do you see what I mean? Punishment has to actually hurt the individual, otherwise it's just this ridiculous situation where you try to imply that a 'huge fine' which would bankrupt many people was actually a harsh punishment, yet it was undoubtedly not. Looking at current earnings, sponsorships etc, you'd probably have to increase it by a factor of 10 to actually be significant enough to warrant such a breach in behaviour.