March 2025 Roundup
A roundup of football law news and decisions from March 2025:
Liam Roberts given six-match suspension for tackle on Jean-Phillipe Mateta
Liam Roberts’ (“LR”) tackle on Jean-Phillipe Mateta (“JPM”) during Millwall FC’s FA Cup match against Crystal Palace FC on 1 March 2025 resulted in LR being sent off for serious foul play, which carries a standard punishment of a three-match ban (FA Disciplinary Regulations (“FADR”), Part D – On Field Regulations (“OFR”), Section One, para. 30-31 and Table 2).
The Laws of the Game, Law 12, section 3 defines ‘serious foul play’ as follows:
‘A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play’.
Pursuant to OFR, Section One, para. 20.2, the FA ‘may seek to increase the disciplinary consequences of a sending-off offence by making a claim that the standard punishment is clearly insufficient in accordance with the procedure set out in Fast Track 6 of the Fast Track Regulations. The Association may bring such a claim where it is satisfied that the standard punishment otherwise applicable to that sending-off offence would be clearly insufficient. Such claims may only be made by The Association for the following sending-off offences: (a) serious foul play; (b) violent conduct; or (c) spitting at an opponent or any other person’.
The FA made such a claim in respect of LR’s tackle on JPM.
FADR, Fast Track 6: Clearly Insuffidicent (“FT6”) sets out the procedure by which the FA can make a claim that a standard punishment is clearly insufficient.
FT6, para. 6 states that a Referee’s report showing that a Player was dismissed for serious foul play ‘shall be conclusive evidence that the Player has breached the relevant Law of the Game and shall not be subject to challenge’.
An FA Regulatory Commission deciding upon a claim that a standard punishment is clearly insufficient will be provided with and consider (i) the Referee’s report, any other Match Official’s report, and any other evidence supporting the Referee’s action, together with any statements, video footage or other evidence in support of the claim; and (ii) any written reply and evidence provided by the Player in reply to the claim (FT6, para. 8, 9 and 11.1).
FT6, para. 11.2 and 11.3 set out the test applied by a Regulatory Commission when considering a claim that a standard punishment is clearly insufficient:
‘11.2 After considering the evidence, the Regulatory Commission will decide whether the claim is rejected or is successful. A claim will only be successful where the Regulatory Commission is satisfied so that it is sure that:
11.2.1 the circumstances of the dismissal under review are truly exceptional, such that the standard punishment should not be applied; and
11.2.2 as a result of the truly exceptional circumstances the standard punishment would be clearly insufficient.
11.3 In considering the matters at paragraph 11.2 above, the Regulatory Commission shall have regard to:
11.3.1 the applicable Law(s) of the Game and any relevant FIFA instructions and / or guidelines;
11.3.2 the nature of the dismissal offence including the Player’s state of mind, in particular any intent, recklessness or negligence;
11.3.3 where applicable, the level of force used;
11.3.4 any injury to an opponent caused by the dismissal offence;
11.3.5 any other impact on the game in which the incident occurred;
11.3.6 the prevalence of the type of incident in question in football generally;
11.3.7 the wider interests of football in applying consistent punishments for dismissal offences’.
FT6, para. 11.5 explains what occurs in the event that a claim that a standard punishment is clearly insufficient:
‘In the event the claim is successful, the standard punishment shall be set aside. The Regulatory Commission will go on to decide the punishment to be applied to the Player in respect of the dismissal. In deciding on the appropriate punishment, the Regulatory Commission shall have regard to those factors listed at paragraphs 11.3.1 to 11.3.7 above. Any punishment imposed by the Regulatory Commission shall be limited to a suspension from playing a specified number of Matches in addition to the standard penalty’.
In LR’s case, the Regulatory Commission, upon consideration of video evidence and submissions from the FA (which included a letter from CPFC and medical evidence identifying the treatment JPM received following LR’s tackle) and submissions from LR, was ‘unanimous in their opinions that LR had in no way intended to injure JPM in the way that he did’ (see paragraphs 20-26 and 31 of the Regulatory Commission’s written reasons).
However, the Regulatory Commission was also unanimous that ‘the manner by which LR made the challenge that injured JPM was so reckless in nature that it reached that high bar and was ‘truly exceptional’ such that the Commission was sure that the application of the standard punishment for this particular dismissal would be ‘clearly insufficient’’ (see paragraph 33).
In making that decision, the Regulatory Commission noted ten specific factors, which included: (i) LR is an experienced goalkeeper both in age and appearances; (ii) ‘LR chose to go into the challenge at tremendous speed and with extreme force, with his leading boot around six foot high, studs showing’; (iii) ‘LR’s recklessness was of such a high degree that he exposed JPM to an unacceptable high risk of serious injury’; and (iv) ‘LR’s challenge in terms of speed, force and actions was so extreme in its recklessness and brutality that it ought to be categorised as being ‘truly exceptional’ such that the standard penalty is clearly insufficient’ (see paragraph 34).
Having considered all the available material, the Regulatory Commission concluded that ‘an appropriate sanction for this offence would be that LR is suspended [… for] six (6) First Team matches’. Comparatively, this is the same length of ban imposed for spitting at an opponent or any other person (OFR, Table 2).
Whilst tackles of this nature are not common (i.e., a high foot resulting in studs into the head and/or face of the Player being tackled), considering the severity of injuries that can arise from the same, and the increased focus on protecting Players from head injuries, the FA should consider introducing a standard punishment for tackles of this nature.
Patrick Assoumu Eyi given lifetime ban
The adjudicatory chamber of FIFA’s Ethics Committee has sanctioned Patrick Assoumu Eyi (“PAE”), a former Gabonese youth coach, with a lifetime ban from all football-related activity and a fine of CHF 1,000,000 after finding PAE ‘guilty of abusing his position and committing repeated acts of sexual abuse against multiple players, in violation of the FIFA Code of Ethics’, following complaints of sexual abuse from four male footballers between 2006 and 2021.
FIFA’s statement announcing the decision is available here. Whilst written reasons have not yet been published, FIFA’s statement explains that ‘the adjudicatory chamber found that Mr Eyi had breached article 24 (Protection of physical and mental integrity) and article 26 (Abuse of position) of the FIFA Code of Ethics’.
This BBC News article and this Guardian article (by Ed Aarons) provide some background information to the case against PAE.
Nottingham Forest FC lose appeal against £750,000 fine
As explained in Football Law’s October 2024 Roundup, an FA Regulatory Commission sanctioned Nottingham Forest FC (“NFFC”) with a £750,000 fine for comments that NFFC posted on X after NFFC’s Premier League match against Everton FC on 21 April 2024, which were found to amount to a breach of FA Rules, r. E3.1.
NFFC appealed against the Regulatory Commission’s decision, and a statement released by the FA on 10 March 2025 explains that NFFC’s appeal had been dismissed by an FA Appeal Board, who also ordered NFFC to remove the offending X post. The Appeal Board’s written reasons are available here.
On liability, NFFC appealed on the basis that the Regulatory Commission (i) ‘reached a decision as to the meaning of the [X post] which was “perverse”’; and (ii) ‘failed to apply the correct test to the words so that NFFC did not receive a fair hearing’ (see paragraph 22 of the written reasons; see also FADR, Part C – Appeals – Non-Fast Track, para. 2.1-2.3).
The Appeal Board dismissed the first ground of appeal for the following reasons:
‘The submission that NFFC did not receive a fair hearing is not based on an allegation of procedural unfairness. It depends entirely on the submission that the Commission applied the wrong test as to the meaning of the tweet. To dress this submission up as an allegation that the Commission denied NFFC a fair hearing is misconceived’ (see paragraph 30).
In respect of the second ground of appeal, NFFC relied upon an argument that, inter alia, NFFC’s X post ‘only sought to criticise the process that led to [Stuart Attwell’s] appointment [as VAR] and did not cross the line from legitimate comment to misconduct’ (see paragraph 28).
The Appeal Board also dismissed the second ground of appeal, stating, inter alia:
‘If the facts had simply been, without more, that Mr Attwell had been appointed as the VAR in the face of NFFC’s opposition on the grounds that he was a Luton Town supporter, a subsequent complaint by NFFC about his appointment could not have amounted to misconduct. The complaint would not have been about any decisions that Mr Attwell had made. It would have been that Mr Attwell should not have been appointed on the grounds that any decision he made might have been susceptible to challenge for apparent.
[…]
In our view, the Commission reached the right conclusion at paragraph 26 of its Decision. On the face of the [X post], there was plainly an implied allegation of actual bias. Alternatively, the Commission’s decision was not one to which no reasonable such body could have come’ (see paragraphs 32-36).
On sanction, NFFC appealed on the basis that the £750,000 was excessive ‘when compared with the financial penalties imposed on similar status clubs for similar or more serious misconduct’ (see paragraph 53; see also FADR, Part C – Appeals – Non-Fast Track, para. 2.4).
In considering how to approach this question, the Appeal Board provided the following observation on the margin of appreciation to be given to a Regulatory Commission’s decision on sanction and whether the same is excessive:
‘We have reservations about describing the margin of appreciation as “generous and significant” if these words connote that the margin should be greater than that allowed in a typical exercise of discretion […] In most contexts where a margin of appreciation is applied to a challenged decision, the nature or degree of the margin is not described or qualified. That is the approach we think should be applied here’ (see paragraph 68).
That observation clarifies and arguably narrows the ‘generous and significant margin of appreciation’ noted in The FA v Jurgen Klopp, FA Appeal Board (Ch. Graeme McPherson KC), 13 November 2022, [20(d)], at least in respect of Non-Fast Track appeals.
Applying that approach, the Appeal Board also dismissed NFFC’s appeal on sanction. The Appeal Board noted:
‘We are not impressed by the argument based on the fact that the fine was higher than any other fine that has been imposed by The FA or the Premier League. The other cases to which Mr De Marco has referred were so different as to be of no relevance. In reality, the Commission had to start without any assistance as to the appropriate level of fine for a case such as this.
In addition to the seriousness of the offence, the Commission was entitled and right to give very considerable weight to the need for deterrence and the fact that NFFC had no mitigation […]
If we were deciding the level of fine for ourselves at first instance, we might have arrived at a lower figure than £750,000, although we would have had difficulty in deciding on an appropriate figure. But we are a reviewing tribunal. Allowing a margin of appreciation and reminding ourselves that the burden is on NFFC to persuade us that the fine was excessive, we have decided that the appeal against sanction should be dismissed’ (see paragraphs 71-73).
Notably, the Appeal Board also went further than the Regulatory Commission by ordering NFFC to remove the offending X post (see paragraph 75 and FADR, Part C – Appeals – Non-Fast Track, para. 21.5).
Further, the Appeal Board also provided the following invitation to the FA in respect of sanctions to be imposed for such cases (which is sensible considering the prevalence of football clubs’ use of social media, and, as with most sports’ disciplinary matters, the benefit of providing just and efficient outcomes):
‘[…] this appeal has highlighted the difficulties faced by a Commission in arriving at a reasonable and proportionate penalty in circumstances where the facts are wholly unprecedented. It is not surprising that, in such a case, the offending club complains that the penalty imposed is arbitrary or plucked out of the air. We invite The FA to give careful consideration to issuing sanction guidelines for different kinds of offending. The FA is in a good position, after consulting with stakeholders, to publish a comprehensive and coherent range of sanctions. This would promote transparency and consistency and public confidence in the system. This has proved invaluable in the world of sentencing for criminal offences’.
Club León removed from FIFA Club World Cup 2025
In a statement released by FIFA on 21 March 2025, it was announced that a FIFA Appeal Committee had decided that Mexican football clubs CF Pachuca (“CFP”) and Club León (“CL”) failed to comply with article 10.1 of the Regulations for the FIFA Club World Cup 2025 (“the CWC Regulations”), which states
’10.1 To ensure the integrity of the Competition, participating clubs shall meet the below criteria when submitting the Participation Agreement and shall continue to comply with the criteria until the end of the Competition:
a) No club participating in the Competition may, either directly or indirectly:
i) hold or deal in the securities or shares of any other club participating in the Competition;
ii) be a member of any other club participating in the Competition;
iii) be involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of any other club participating in the Competition; or
iv) have any power whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of any other club participating in the Competition.
b) No one may simultaneously be involved, either directly or indirectly, in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in the Competition.
c) No individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in the Competition, such control or influence being defined in this context as:
i) holding a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights;
ii) having the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body of the club;
iii) being a shareholder and alone controlling a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights pursuant to an agreement entered into with other shareholders of the club; or
iv) being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club’.
Written reasons for the Appeal Committee’s decision have not been released (see FIFA Disciplinary Code, article 54.3), and therefore it is not currently known which of the above-stated criteria have been breached.
FIFA’s statement also identifies that, following the Appeal Committee’s decision, and in accordance with article 10.4 of the CWC Regulations, ‘FIFA has determined that [CL] will be removed from the competition, with the club to be admitted as a replacement to be announced in due course’. Article 10.4 of the CWC Regulations states:
‘If the FIFA Disciplinary Committee decides that two or more clubs fail to meet the criteria defined in paragraph 1 above, the FIFA general secretariat shall decide which club may be admitted to the Competition and how a club that is not admitted shall be replaced in accordance with the following principles, taking into account, in particular, the respective ranking(s) of the club(s) concerned and the applicable quota per confederation and/or member association to which the club(s) concerned is/are affiliated’.
CFP and CL have since filed with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) appeals against the Appeal Committee’s decision and seeking a declaration that the clubs comply with article 10.1 of the CWC Regulations. CL has also filed an appeal against FIFA’s / the general secretariat’s decision to remove CL from the FIFA Club World Cup 2025. A media release from CAS dated 4 April 20205 confirms the clubs’ appeals and also explains that the appeals will be heard during the week commencing 5 May 2025.
This article by Alexander Abnos for the Guardian provides some helpful background to CFP’s and CL’s selection for the FIFA Club World Cup 2025 and hints at the ownership issues that likely resulted in CL’s removal from the competition.
Update on 15 April 2025: The Appeal Committee’s decision is now available here. An article explaining this decision will be provided soon.
14 April 2025