Olympique Lyonnais (improper conduct of the team; field invasion by supporters; insufficient organization; setting off and throwing of fireworks; crowd disturbances; stairways blocked), Decision of 13 July 2017, UEFA Decision
Circumstances of the case
According to the official reports of UEFA Europa League match between Olympique Lyonnais and Beşiktaş, several incidents were reported regarding Olympique Lyonnais, such as insufficient organization, pitch invasions, crowd disturbances, setting off and throwing of fireworks, blocking of stairways and improper conduct of the team. The CEDB considered that a very harsh sanction needed to be imposed on the club, considering the extreme violence which broke out in the stands. The CEDB emphasised that such behaviour tarnishes the image of football, of UEFA and the UEFA Europa League. The CEDB also took into account the positive previous record of the club pertaining to crowd disturbances and decided to exclude Olympique Lyonnais from participating in the next UEFA club competition, deferring this exclusion for a probationary period of two (2) years. The club appealed the CEDB’s decision, requesting that the exclusion from participating in the next UEFA club competition is set aside and an amount of fine is fixed according to the principle of proportionality. In its appeal the club accepted the breaches established in the CEDB decision, but stated that the CEDB did not consider the club’s degree of fault and the sanctions imposed were disproportionate. The club also held that its right to equal treatment was violated in light of the significantly lower sanctions imposed on other clubs in the past in alleged similar circumstances.
Legal framework Article 15 (4) of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations (DR). Article 16 (2) (a), (c) and (h) of the UEFA DR; Article 37 and Article 38 of the UEFA Safety and Security Regulations
Decision
On 19 April 2017, the CEDB decided to exclude Olympique Lyonnais from participating in the next UEFA club competition, deferred for a probationary period of two (2) years. The CEDB also imposed a fine of 100’000 on the club. The Appeals Body upheld the initial CEDB decision and rejected the appeal of Olympique Lyonnais. The Appeals Body considered that the CEDB neither abused nor exceeded its broad powers of discretion and that the measures imposed comply with the principles of legality and proportionality. The Appeals Body particularly agreed with the considerations of the CEDB regarding the behaviour of Olympique Lyonnais’ supporters. The Appeals Body considered that although it is clear that having so many supporters of the Visiting Club in the stadium did not help matters but, the fact that there is a large away support at a match should never be used as an excuse for violent behaviour by the home supporters. In this scenario, the Appeals Body decided that, considering the specific circumstances of the case, a combination of a fine and an exclusion was clearly appropriate.
Chairman: Pedro Tomás (Spain)
Members:
Michael Maessen (Netherlands)
Björn Ahlberg (Sweden)
on Thursday, 13 July 2017. Posted in Sports, Football, Cases, Articles, Regulation & Governance
FC Porto (throwing of objects; setting off of fireworks), Decision of 13 July 2017, UEFA Decision
Circumstances of the case
According to the official reports of the referee and the delegate of the UEFA Champions League 2016/2017 match between FC Porto and Juventus Football Club on 22 February 2017, coins were thrown at match officials by FC Porto’s supporters during the match and one coin actually hit the referee. It was also reported that fireworks were ignited on three occasions during the match, resulting in loud bangs. On 23 February 2017, the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body (CEDB) decided that FC Porto had breached Article 16 (2) (b) and (c) of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations and imposed FC Porto a fine.
The club in its appeal stated that the delegate’s report contradicts the referee’s report, since according to the delegate’s report no coins were provided to him by the match officials and no coins were found on the pitch after the match. FC Porto also suggests that neither the delegate nor the referee knew what caused the loud bangs. FC Porto concludes that it was impossible for the standard of proof of comfortable satisfaction to be reached.
Legal Framework Article 16 (2) (b) and (c) of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations.
Decision
On 23 March 2017, the CEDB decided to fine FC Porto €17,000. The CEDB indicated being more than comfortably satisfied that coins were thrown during the match – in particular, since the referee himself actually describes being hit by a coin in his report. The CEDB concluded that the mere absence of the coins cannot disprove the accuracy of a firsthand account by the referee for the match which expressly describes coins being thrown. As to the setting off of fireworks, the CEDB noted that the referee and the delegate are both experienced officials having experienced multiple incidents of fireworks and considered that a simple statement from the club alleging other cause is not sufficient to disprove the accuracy of the official reports. The Appeals Body upheld the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body’s decision of 23 March 2017 and rejected the appeal of FC Porto.
Chairman: Pedro Tomás (Spain)
Members:
Michael Maessen (Netherlands)
Björn Ahlberg (Sweden)
on Thursday, 13 July 2017. Posted in Sports, Football, Cases, Articles, Regulation & Governance
#Sport: The digital battle between sponsors, rights holders and ambush marketers
Published Thursday, 13 July 2017.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) confirms the decision rendered by the International Canoe Federation (ICF) in the case of Serghei Tarnovschi
INTERPOL Integrity in Sport Bi-Weekly Bulletin - 26 June - 10 July 2017
Trade marks for sport events - How Wimbledon secured their colour mark - Episode 48
Sexism in football & the independence of disciplinary panels: Issues from the David Moyes case
Published Wednesday, 05 July 2017.
The Denny Solomona transfer: Why did Castleford settle and does the case set a new precedent?
Published Thursday, 29 June 2017.
The Union Cycliste Internationale Management Committee approves 2016 UCI Annual Report
Helmet to helmet: The latest in Schutt and Riddell’s IP row
Indian sports federations need to restructure to meet international standards
CCES receives support from the Canadian Olympic Committee in the lead up to major Games
A reference guide to the Russian doping scandal and response to the McLaren Reports
Published Tuesday, 27 June 2017.
The UK Anti-Doping Agency (UKAD) statement on RUSADA’s recommencement of testing
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) rejects further requests for interim measures filed by PFC CSKA Sofia
Ridder to head the BWF Athletes’ Commission
Why the eSports industry needs to be aware of local laws in order to be successful in the Middle East
Published Wednesday, 21 June 2017.
Freestyle skiing athlete suspended for presence of cocaine
FIFA to step up anti-discrimination mechanisms at Confederations Cup
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) dismisses the appeal filed by Russian boxer Misha Aloyan
NHL fights Boston University over attorney fees
Sport and Recreation Alliance announce appointment of three new board members
Broomball athlete suspended for presence of cannabis
UK Sport set to drive a more sustainable winning culture across high performance system in response to Independent Review
Concussion in sport - How employers’ duties compare in the U.K., Ireland & North America
Published Monday, 17 July 2017.
Besiktas (throwing of objects; setting off of fireworks; crowd disturbances), Decision of 13 July 2017, UEFA Decision
Circumstances of the case
During the UEFA Europa League 2016/2017 match between Olympique Lyonnais and Beşiktaş on 13 April 2017 (the “Match”), several incidents involving both Olympique Lyonnais and Beşiktaş’ supporters were reported. The Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body (CEDB) considered it was established that Beşiktaş’ supporters ignited and threw fireworks towards Olympique Lyonnais’ supporters standing below their sector, causing the supporters to escape their sector and provoking a massive field invasion. Beşiktaş supporters created crowd disturbances during the match. The CEDB took into account that the club has been repeatedly sanctioned at away matches with significant fines and constantly warned about the grave consequences in persisting in this attitude. However, instead of an improvement, the incidents during the match in which the club’s supporters played a main role put in danger the life of spectators. The CEDB considered that the mere fact of throwing fireworks, which is inherently a dangerous object already for those lighting it, towards other supporters has no excuse. Added to it, the circumstance of throwing them from an elevated position towards spectators standing right below is definitely an aggravating circumstance. Also it caused an emergency situation by means of a massive field invasion. The CEDB decided on 19 April 2017 to exclude Beşiktaş from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it will otherwise qualify (exclusion deferred for a probationary period of two (2) years) as well as to impose a fine of € 100’000. The club appealed stating that the sanctions imposed were disproportionate because it did not take into account mitigating factors. The club also held not being responsible for the behaviour of “non official” supporters.
Legal framework Article 16 (2) (b), (c) and (h) of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations.
Decision
On 19 April 2017, the CEDB decided to exclude Beşiktaş from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it will otherwise qualify. This exclusion is deferred for a probationary period of two (2) years. In addition, Beşiktaş is fine € 100’000. The Appeals Body rejected the appeal of Beşiktaş and upheld the initial CEDB’s decision and considered that the decision was not only justified, but the most lenient possible decision that could be taken in line with the applicable framework. The Appeals Body considered that the list of elements exposed by the CEDB constitutes enough basis for imposing the exclusion and the fine. The Appeals Body also established that the principle of strict liability applies regardless of fault and consequently, the club is responsible for any misconduct of their supporters, including the so called “unofficial” supporters.
Chairman: Pedro Tomás (Spain)
Members:
Michael Maessen (Netherlands)
Björn Ahlberg (Sweden)
on Thursday, 13 July 2017. Posted in Sports, Football, Cases, Articles, Regulation & Governance
Luxembourg Football Federation (player’s eligibility), Decision of 13 July 2017, UEFA Decision
Circumstances of the case
By decision of the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body of 8 December 2016, the Luxembourg Football Federation player Dublin Yannis (the player) was suspended for the next three (3) UEFA competition matches for which he would be otherwise eligible. On 28 March 2017, the Luxembourg Football Federation played against the Football Federation of Kazakhstan in a European Under-21 Championship 2019 match (the match). The player was registered within the relevant player list, participated in the match and played for its full duration. The Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body (CEDB) decided that the Luxembourg Football Federation is responsible for the participation of a player whilst he had still pending suspensions violating Articles 43.01 and 43.07 of the 2017-19 UEFA European Under-21 Championship Regulations. In this context, in accordance with Article 21 (2) of the Disciplinary Regulations (edition 2016), the relevant match is declared forfeit. Consequently, as per Article 21 (4) (a) of the Disciplinary Regulations (edition 2016), the Luxembourg Football federation is considered to have lost the match 3:0. The club, in its appeal, argued that it never formally received the CEDB decision of 8 December 2016 regarding the possible suspension of the player and thus, the decision has to be regarded as null and void, having as consequence that the player was not ineligible at the occasion of the match against the Football Federation of Kazakhstan.
Legal framework Article 21 (2) and (4) (a) of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations (edition 2016). Articles 43.01 and 43.07 of the 2017-19 UEFA European Under-21 Championship Regulations.
Decision
On 18 May 2017, the CEDB decided to declare the European Under-21 Championship 2019 match Luxembourg vs. Kazakhstan played on 28 March 2017 as forfeit. The Luxembourg Football Federation is deemed to have lost the match 3:0. The appeal lodged by the Luxembourg Football Federation was dismissed by the Appeals Body and the decision of the CEDB of 18 May 2017 was confirmed. The Appeals Body indicated it was comfortably satisfied that the player was ineligible to play during the match against Kazakhstan, that the CEDB’s decision regarding the event triggering the ineligibility of the player was duly notified to the Luxembourg Football Federation, that in the hypothetical and unproven case that the Luxembourg Football Federation could not take note of the Decision, it was responsible for such circumstance and who should have made the necessary inquiry to UEFA.
Chairman: Pedro Tomás (Spain)
Members:
Michael Maessen (Netherlands)
Björn Ahlberg (Sweden)
on Thursday, 13 July 2017. Posted in Sports, Football, Cases, Articles, Regulation & Governance
An interview with Ornella Desirée Bellia, Head of Legal Affairs at EPFL
New research reinforces need to treat jockeys as elite athletes
FK Crvena Zvezda (stairways blocked; doping control issues) - Decision 7 July 2017, UEFA Decision
Circumstances of the case
The UEFA match delegate reported that in the central section of the North Stand of the stadium, FK Crvena Zvezda supporters were standing and blocking stairways during the whole game, impeding the free flow of spectators. Also, it was reported that during the half time break the club’s supporters in the front row of the North Stand displayed a small flag featuring a portrait of Dragoljub Mihailović, a Yugoslav Serb general during the World War II involved in ethnic cleansing. FK Crvena Zvezda supporters also displayed a large text banner reading “Let babies be born, it is the message of the North [stand], we do not want Serbia to be a land of faggots”) and chanted the same slogan. Regarding the alleged homophobic message, the club stated that the violation was rather discriminatory than racist. The club denies the occurrence of the racist incident, arguing that an interpretation was given to the Mihailović banner which did not reflect the truth. Regarding the blocking of stairways, the club stated that the incident occurred solely on one tribune
Legal framework Article 14 UEFA Disciplinary Regulations and Article 38 Safety and Security Regulations
Decision
In the present case, the CEDB recalled that the fight against racism and any form of xenophobic behaviour is a high priority for UEFA. UEFA has a policy of zero tolerance towards racism and discrimination on the pitch and in the stands. With regard to the homophobic banner, the CEDB could not make any sense of which the club would point to the assumption that the incident was rather discriminatory than racist, when both behaviours would obviously violate Art. 14 of the DR. Regarding the banner showing Dragoljub Mihailović, the CEDB was however not convinced whether such banner was in fact racist or discriminatory, given that there were in fact several possible interpretations which could possibly be given to the banner. Bearing in mind the previous record of the club with regard to Art. 14 DR violations, the CEDB decided to order the partial closure of the club’s stadium during the next UEFA competition match in which the club would play as the host club, and in particular of the entire North Stand. Regarding the blocking of stairways, the CEDB decided that that a fine of € 8’000 is the adequate sanction.
Chairman: Partl Thomas (AUT)
on Friday, 07 July 2017. Posted in Sports, Football, Cases, Articles, Regulation & Governance
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) rejects urgent application for provisional measures filed by Peter Sagan & Denk Pro Cycling GmbH
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) dismisses the appeal of ACF Fiorentina
Seventh Circuit: Season tickets are a privilege, not a right
The Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation announces anti-doping strategy for 2017 Tour de France
Powerlifting athlete suspended for presence of four banned substances
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario does not strike out Cleveland Indians’ logo complaint
Statement from FIBA Europe on FIBA Europe-Euroleague termination agreement case
WADA permits RUSADA to plan and coordinate testing under the supervision of International Experts and the UK Anti-Doping Agency
INTERPOL Integrity in Sport Bi-Weekly Bulletin - 12-25 June 2017
No Pack No! Bears sued by Packers fan over fan gear
The unheard voice: the athlete's view of the most important legal issues in sport
The National Hockey League (NHL) trying to eject two retired players from concussion lawsuit
The University of Central Florida (UCF) kickoff specialist and YouTube star violating NCAA rules?
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) rejects request for interim measures in the arbitration PFC CSKA Sofia / UEFA
A heavyweight doping battle between Tyson Fury, VADA, UKAD and the BBBoC
Published Thursday, 15 June 2017.
Powerlifting athlete suspended for presence of heptaminol
Vijay Singh files appeal against PGA Tour
Antitrust: Commission opens formal investigations into Nike's, Sanrio's and Universal Studios' licensing and distribution practices
British Cycling publishes the Cycling Independent Review