The recent decision of an FA Appeal Board in Craig Walton v Birmingham County FA (“Walton”) raises several questions of procedural fairness and natural justice. This article analyses the FA Appeal Board’s approach to allowing the appeal in Walton, and addresses shortcomings in the FA’s Disciplinary Regulations and Whole Game System.

On 11 July 2023, Harry Toffolo was charged by the FA with a breach of FA Rules, rule E1(b) in respect of 375 bets placed on football matches between 22 January 2014 and 18 March 2017 in breach of FA Rules, rule E8 (“the Charge”). Mr Toffolo admitted the Charge, and this article provides a case summary of the Regulatory Commission’s decision on sanction, compares the recent case of Ivan Toney, and identifies key practical takeaways from the Regulatory Commission’s decision.

On 5 April 2023, Daniel Podence of Wolverhampton Wanderers FC was charged with a breach of the FA Rules, rule E1.1 for allegedly spitting at Nottingham Forest FC’s Brennan Johnson when the two teams played in a Premier League fixture at the City Ground on 1 April 2023. This article provides a case summary of the Regulatory Commission’s decision finding that the charge was not proved.

A recent decision by an FA Appeal Board in the case of The FA v Imran Louza considered the standard of proof applicable to cases of “serious Misconduct” and the proposition that the more serious the allegation the more cogent the evidence must be to prove the same. This article explains the FA Appeal Board’s written reasons and considers whether the same has caused any change.

At the end of Everton FC’s match against Manchester United FC on 9 April 2022, Cristiano Ronaldo was videoed slapping a mobile phone out of a 14-year-old’s hand as he walked down the players’ tunnel after the match had finished. Ronaldo was charged by The FA for a breach of rule E3.1 of The FA Rules, which he admitted. This article explains the Regulatory Commission’s approach to determining the appropriate sanction to impose on Ronaldo.

What constitutes an ‘assault’ in the FA Disciplinary Regulations? Where is the line to be drawn within the FA Disciplinary Regulations between an ‘assault’ and the lesser offence of ‘physical contact’? A recent decision of an FA Appeal Board has provided some much-needed clarity on this issue but also raised further questions that need answering.

On 27 October 2022 the written reasons of the EFL Disciplinary Commission were published in a case concerning an acquisition of shares in Rochdale AFC in July 2021. The acquisition had been completed without compliance with the EFL’s Owners’ and Directors’ Test and resulted in sanctions being imposed on Rochdale AFC and certain individuals involved with the acquisition.

At the end of a hotly contested Premier League match between Chelsea FC and Tottenham Hotspur FC on 14 August 2022, Thomas Tuchel and Antonio Conte shook hands and an incident followed. Both managers were charged with a breach of rule E3.1 of The FA Rules and were sanctioned by an FA Regulatory Commission. Mr Tuchel received a more severe sanction and then unsuccessfully appealed against the same to an FA Appeal Board. This article explains both decisions.

There has been an increase in the use of flares and smoke bombs at football matches over the last year. A recent decision from an FA Regulatory Commission dealt with Richarlison de Andrade’s throwing of a flare back into the stands at Goodison Park, and there have been increased efforts to stamp down on their use generally. This articles explains the Regulatory Commission’s decision and considers those efforts.

On 11 March 2021 the FA announced that an FA Regulatory Commission had sanctioned referee Darren Drysdale with a four-match backdated suspension for an incident involving Ipswich Town FC’s Alan Judge during an EFL League One match. This article summarises and explains the FA Regulatory Commission’s decision and considers whether Alan Judge could also face a charge in respect of the same incident.

On 12 February 2021 the FA Regulatory Commission’s decision on the sanction imposed on Nathaniel Mendez-Laing for a breach of the FA’s Anti-Doping Regulations (“FAADR”) was announced. This article explains how the lex mitior principle applied to this breach of the FAADR and allowed Mr Mendez-Laing to avoid a potential two-year suspension.

On 31 December 2020 it was announced that Edinson Cavani had admitted a charge of an Aggravated Breach of the FA Rules, rule E3.1 in respect of an Instagram story post. A FA Regulatory Commission subsequently sanctioned Cavani with a three-match suspension, a £100,000 fine, and attendance at an education programme. This article explains why that sanction was appropriate.

Kieran Trippier’s 10-week worldwide ban from all football related activity has come unstuck courtesy of Atlético. This article explains how The FA was unsuccessful in its application to vary the effective date of the 10-week suspension in an attempt to avoid the disruption caused by Atlético.

On 22 December 2020 it was announced that Kieran Trippier was sanctioned with a 10-week worldwide suspension from all football-related activity and a £70,000 fine. The sanction was imposed following proved charges against Trippier that he had provided inside information to others and which was then used by those others to place bets. This article explains how those charges were proved and why the sanction was imposed, and also considers the appropriateness of the sanction.

Over the past year Macclesfield Town FC (“MTFC”) had been a regular recipient of charges from the English Football League (“EFL”) for breaches of the EFL Regulations, and subsequently of sanctions from Independent Disciplinary Commissions and League Arbitration Panels. Then, on 16 September 2020 it was announced that MTFC had been wound up. This article provides a chronology of MTFC over the past year to try and explain how MTFC came to be in this position, and explains what being wound up means for MTFC.