Ronaldo Slapped with a Suspension and a Fine
On 22 September 2022 The Football Association (“FA”) charged Cristiano Ronaldo (“CR”), then player of Manchester United FC (“MUFC”), with a breach of rule E3.1 of The FA Rules, which states:
‘A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour’ (“the Charge”).
The Charge related to CR’s behaviour at the end of an FA Premier League match between MUFC and Everton FC (“EFC”) on 9 April 2022. As he left the pitch CR slapped a mobile phone out of a 14-year-old boy’s hand (“the Spectator”). The incident can be seen in this video.
CR admitted the Charge, and following a paper hearing an FA Regulatory Commission sanctioned CR with a two-match ban, a £50,000 fine and a warning as to his future conduct.[1]
This article will explain the Regulatory Commission’s approach in determining the appropriate sanctions to impose on CR.
Relevant factual background
The incident took place at EFC’s home ground, Goodison Park, after EFC’s 1-0 win over MUFC. It involved CR slapping a phone out of the Spectator’s hand (who was later reported to be autistic) as he headed off the pitch at the end of the match.
The Regulatory Commission was provided with two recordings of the incident: one of 5 seconds where abuse can be heard directed at MUFC’s players (“Clip 1”) and the other of 28 seconds without sound (“Clip 2”).
After the incident CR was conditionally cautioned by Merseyside Police. The Regulatory Commission received a copy of the MG14 conditional caution form signed by CR on 17 August 2022.[2] A criminal caution can only be formalised where someone admits the crime. In this case CR admitted to and was cautioned for two offences. On the one hand, the offence of assault by beating (battery) for intentionally or recklessly applying unlawful force to another. On the other hand, the offence of criminal damage for causing damage to the Spectator’s phone. CR paid £200 in compensation for these offences.
The Spectator, who had been filming CR limp off the pitch with a leg injury, said CR hit his hand ‘very hard’, causing his phone to smash on the floor.[3] It was not clear from Clip 1 if the Spectator had been one of the spectators abusing MUFC players. The Spectator’s mother said she was ‘disgusted and shocked’.[4] CR’s PA later contacted her asking to ‘sort this out of the media and courts’ and CR himself sent her a text with his personal number asking if there was anything he could do.[5] CR promptly apologised on social media for his ‘outburst’ and invited the Spectator to watch a match at Old Trafford, MUFC’s home ground.[6]
CR’s case
In his written response to the FA’s initial letter of 10 April 2022 CR described the atmosphere at the end of the match as hostile and ‘feverish’.[7] MUFC’s players had to leave the pitch through a walkway which was not the regular players’ tunnel. This walkway brought them into close contact with EFC supporters. CR said he had injured his leg late in the match and, as he limped off the pitch, he could see an arm pointing towards his leg. The arm, he said, was ‘holding an object’ and his instinct was to slap ‘the object away’.[8] He described this response as ‘an instinctively proactive reaction’.[9] He repeated that account in his formal reply to the Charge on 10 October 2022.
The Regulatory Commission also considered testimony from other sources. In a witness statement David Newell, MUFC Protection and Security Manager, recalled that EFC supporters were abusing MUFC players down the walkway. He described the walkway as narrow and that from a ‘crowd management and player safety perspective situation was dangerous for [MUFC] players’.[10] The Regulatory Commission read supporting evidence from Darren Fletcher, MUFC Technical Director, and Fernando de Silva, President of the Portuguese Football Federation. Both spoke of CR’s qualities as a player and his relationship with supporters in glowing terms.
Written submissions on behalf of CR asserted that CR accepted the Charge on the grounds that his conduct was ‘improper’ but denied that it was ‘violent’.[11]
The sanctioning framework
As indicated in the FA’s announcement of the Charge, the Charge was dealt with pursuant to The FA’s Disciplinary Regulations, Part E: Fast Track Regulations, Fast Track 2 – Incidents on or Around the Field of Play (“FT2 Regulations”).
While the FT2 Regulations provide standard punishments for a ‘Standard Case’, CR’s case was designated as a non-Standard Case. Although not explained in the Regulatory Commission’s written reasons, it is presumed that CR’s case was designated as a non-Standard Case because of ‘the level of aggression demonstrated in the alleged behaviour and/or the unusual nature of the reported behaviour’.[12] In such circumstances, a Regulatory Commission has a discretion to impose any penalty it considers appropriate.[13] However, non-Standard Cases still require the application of the FA’s Disciplinary Regulations, Part A – General Provisions (“General Provisions”) which, amongst other things, identity the Regulatory Commission’s powers in determining an appropriate penalty.[14]
A Regulatory Commission can impose penalties comprising one or more of a suspension, a fine and a warning.[15] Any penalty imposed can be suspended for such time and upon such conditions as the Regulatory Commission considers appropriate where there is a ‘clear and compelling reason’ to do so. In the determination of an appropriate penalty, a Regulatory Commission must apply ‘any mitigating factors and/or aggravating factors’.[16]
Further, the principle of proportionality is the guiding principle when considering the application of penalties or sanctions in a sporting regulatory context. The severity of a penalty must be proportionate with the seriousness of the offence.[17]
The Regulatory Commission’s approach and decision
The Regulatory Commission approached CR’s sanction by reference to the General Provisions and established principles such as proportionality. The Regulatory Commission noted that there were no sanctioning guidelines to assist them.[18] Further, the Regulatory Commission noted that CR’s case was not comparable to on-field offences, and presumably the automatic sanctions applicable to the same, for the purposes of determining the appropriate sanction.[19] The Regulatory Commission was therefore of the opinion that CR’s case was ‘completely different from player-on-player foul play or misconduct on the field of play’.
It was submitted on behalf of CR that consideration should be given to the recent incident involving Patrick Viera, manager of Crystal Palace, in which the FA decided not to charge Mr Viera pursuant to rule E3.1 of the FA Rules or otherwise.[20] In that incident, which can be seen in this video, Mr Viera appeared to throw his arm and leg at a spectator on the pitch. The Regulatory Commission declined to consider the FA’s decision not to charge Mr Viera as it was not privy to the reasons for the FA not bringing a charge and the facts of the incidents were materially different (not least in this author’s opinion that that incident occurred during a pitch invasion, as opposed to the Spectator in CR’s case who remained in the stands at Goodison Park).
The Regulatory Commission first assessed the seriousness of the offence, concluding that the slap of the Spectator’s mobile phone was both improper and violent for the following reasons:
It was deliberate and forceful;
It was a petulant act (though spontaneous);
It caused damage to the mobile phone and reddening to the Spectator’s hand; and
The victim was a child.[21]
In consideration of aggravating factors, the Regulatory Commission decided that the offence was aggravated ‘by the fact that [CR] is a very high-profile footballer, whose conduct was witnessed by many’.[22]
The FA relied on two comparable cases in its submissions. The first, FA v Eric Dier, which involved Tottenham Hotspur FC’s player Eric Dier climbing into the stand and pursuing a spectator.[23] The second, FA v Eden Hazard, which involved then Chelsea FC player Eden Hazard receiving a red card and an automatic three-match suspension for kicking a ball from underneath a ball boy.[24] The Regulatory Commission deemed CR’s case less serious than Dier and pointed out that Hazard should be understood as a case where the standard punishment for violent conduct was not deemed ‘clearly insufficient’.[25]
In mitigation CR urged the Regulatory Commission to ‘send out a strong message that deters football fans… [from] harassing and otherwise attacking football players’.[26] The Regulatory Commission recognised that spectator conduct is an issue for football at large and not something it could resolve.[27] Indeed, this is something that the FA has rightly been trying to address, as discussed in this previous Football Law article looking at the problems with flares and pyrotechnics used by football spectators and other associated issues.
The Regulatory Commission decided that, though CR might have felt provoked in the circumstances, the Spectator did nothing more than film him and possibly laugh (according to a witness): conduct not remotely close to justifying CR’s response.[28]
However, the following mitigating factors were taken into account:
CR’s immediate admission to the FA and the Charge;
CR’s public apology to the FA;
The spontaneous nature of the reaction;
CR’s footballing disciplinary record demonstrates it was his first offence of this kind and out of character; and
CR’s personal circumstances and the positive accounts given by his character witnesses.[29]
Having considered the relevant evidence and submissions the Regulatory Commission decided CR’s conduct was both improper and violent within the meaning of rule E3.1 of the FA Rules and was serious enough to merit a sporting sanction.[30] The Regulatory Commission found that, based on Clip 1, the Spectator posed no actual or perceived threat. It said that CR could have ignored the Spectator and walked round him but instead moved his shin guard from one hand to the other and slapped down hard on the Spectator’s hand.[31]
In balancing the competing aggravating and mitigating factors the Regulatory Commission took the view that a two-match suspension was ‘appropriate and proportionate’.[32] Without the mitigation the suspension would have been for three matches.[33] In reaching this view the Regulatory Commission was informed by experiences and opinions of two formal professional footballers sitting on the Regulatory Commission: Stuart Ripley and Tony Agana.
The Regulatory Commission also rejected CR’s submission to suspend the two-match suspension, as there was no clear or compelling reason to do so.[34]
Given MUFC’s ending of CR’s contract with immediate effect on 22 November 2022 following his controversial interview with Piers Morgan, some might think the two-match suspension is nugatory; however, the Regulatory Commission anticipated CR’s potential departure. The suspension will therefore apply to any club under the jurisdiction of the FA he may join and, by virtue of FIFA’s Regulation on the Status and Transfer of Players (“RSTP”), any other club worldwide.[35] Article 12.1 of the RSTP states:
‘any disciplinary sanction of up to four matches or up to three months that has been imposed on a player by the former association but not yet (entirely) served by the time of the transfer shall be enforced by the new association at which the player has been registered in order for the sanction to be served at domestic level’.
It should be noted that the FA’s sanction does not extend to international football. So, while CR will ultimately miss the two first team competitive matches to be played by his next club and for which he is available for selection, he has been able to play for Portugal at the FIFA World Cup 2022 in Qatar.
In addition to the two-match suspension, CR was sanctioned with a £50,000 fine, a warning as to his future conduct and ordered to pay the costs of the Regulatory Commission.[36]
The Regulatory Commission decided that the £50,000 fine was an appropriate and proportionate sum based on an assessment of CR’s weekly salary, his mitigation and the fact that he already paid £200 in compensation. It also found that fines imposed in other cases like Dier (where a fine of £40,000 was imposed) provided no guidance.
Conclusion
The Regulatory Commission’s decision in CR’s case provides useful guidance on the range of factors considered in the determination of an appropriate sanction to impose for a breach of Rule E3.1 of the FA Rules. The decision also serves as a reminder that a suspension imposed under the jurisdiction of the FA can take effect worldwide and cannot be avoided by virtue of an impending transfer to a different club.
This article was written by Nicholas Leah, a pupil barrister at 3 Hare Court Chambers.
Footnotes
[1] The Football Association v Cristiano Ronaldo, FA Regulatory Commission (Ch Christopher Quinlan KC), 8 November 2022.
[2] Ibid, [9].
[3] Ibid, [10a].
[4] Ibid, [10b].
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid, [16].
[7] Ibid, [13].
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid, [18].
[11] Ibid, [20].
[12] The FA’s Disciplinary Regulations, Part E – Fast Track Regulations, Fast Track 2 – Incidents on or Around the Field of Play (“FT2 Regulations”), para. 9.
[13] FT2 Regulations, para. 12.
[14] Ibid, para. 28; The FA Disciplinary Regulations, Part A – General Provisions, para. 41 and 52.
[15] The FA Disciplinary Regulations, Part A – General Provisions, para. 41.
[16] Ibid, para. 42.2.
[17] W v FEI, CAS 99/A/246, 11.5.2000, [31].
[18] (n1), [24].
[19] Ibid; cf. FA Disciplinary Regulations, Part D – On-Field Regulations, Section 1, para. 31.1 and Table 2.
[20] (n1), [25].
[21] Ibid, [26].
[22] Ibid, [27].
[23] The Football Association v Eric Dier, FA Regulatory Commission (Ch Christopher Quinlan QC), 7 July 2020.
[24] Nb. Written reasons are not publicly available for this case.
[25] (n1), [33].
[26] Ibid, [29].
[27] Ibid, [30].
[28] Ibid, [31].
[29] Ibid, [32].
[30] Ibid, [26]-[28].
[31] Ibid, [22b] and [26].
[32] Ibid, [34].
[33] Ibid, [35].
[34] Ibid, [38]-[39]
[35] Ibid, [36].
[36] Ibid, [40] and [42].
7 December 2022