On
05 December 2016, The Football Association (FA) charged Manchester City
Football Club (MCFC) and Chelsea Football Club (CFC) with breaches of the
misconduct rules, under FA Rule E20, in respect of their fixture against one
another on 03 December 2016.
Rule
E20 states the following:
"Each
Affiliated Association, Competition and Club shall be responsible for ensuring:
(a) that its directors, players, officials, employees,
servants, representatives, spectators, and all persons purporting to be its
supporters or followers, conduct themselves in an orderly fashion and refrain
from any one or combination of the following: improper, violent, threatening,
abusive, indecent, insulting or provocative words or behaviour, (including, without
limitation, where any such conduct, words or behaviour includes a reference,
whether express or implied, to
any one or more of ethnic origin, colour, race,
nationality, religion or belief, gender, gender reassignment, sexual
orientation or disability) whilst attending at or taking part in a Match in
which it is involved, whether on its own ground or elsewhere; and
(b) that no spectators or unauthorised persons are
permitted to encroach onto the pitch area, save for reasons of crowd safety, or
to throw missiles, bottles or other potentially harmful or dangerous objects at
or on to the pitch."
The Background
On or around the 95th
minute of the fixture on 03 December 2016, which saw Chelsea win 3-1, tempers
flared when MCFC's Sergio Aguero was sent off for a tackle on CFC's David Luiz.
Thereafter, MCFC's Fernandinho was also sent off following an aggressive encounter
with CFC's Cesc Fabregas, as a mass confrontation between both teams unfolded.
The FA stated, in the
charge, that the clubs had failed to ensure that their players conducted
themselves in an orderly fashion and refrained from provocative behaviour. The
Association was particularly concerned due to the involvement of technical area
occupants and/or stewards; the proximity of the incident to the crowd and the
potential to aggravate the crowd. As such, the case against both clubs was
designated as a non-standard case.
Both clubs admitted the
charges against them but also requested to attend a Regulatory Commission, for
a personal hearing, which would be heard jointly.
The Hearing
The main points that were
covered and considered by the Commission within the hearing were:
- The player's conduct
- The mass confrontation
- Protecting the integrity of the game
The FA stated that, although to some degree, they understood the reasons behind the players' reactions, they could not tolerate the conduct given the risks attached to fan involvement and also the close proximity of the crowd to the field.
One challenge encountered
by the Commission, in making their determinations, was establishing the
culpability of those involved in the matter and what party was actually at
fault for causing the 'mass confrontation'. There was considerable discussion
between the Commission as to whether the Sergio Aguero (CFC) tackle was the
primary instigator of the incident or whether it was the Nathaniel Chalobah
(CFC) push that was responsible. The Commission concluded that whilst they
agreed that the Chalobah push was certainly a catalyst for what thereafter
unfolded, it was the nature of the tackle, from Sergio Aguero, that was the
principle instigator for the incident kicking-off.
Given the high profile of
the incident (top of the table clash) and the global audience that it enjoyed,
the Commission concluded that both parties would be held equally culpable for
the incident.
Mitigation Pleas
In mitigation, MCFC relied
on the club's unblemished record whilst CFC submitted that the club's culture
had changed under their new manager. In relation to the incident in question,
CFC submitted that there was no sustained aggression, the incident did not last
too long and there was no disrespect shown to the referee. Whilst CFC accepted
that they had a previous record and as such, would be punished more severely
than MCFC, the club submitted that the present incident was less serious than
previous conduct infringements, where the club had fallen foul of FA rules.
The Sanctions
In determining sanctions,
the Commission turned to the Guidance for Participants and Clubs 2016-17 which
states that:
"in non-standard cases where a breach has been
admitted or found proven, a Regulatory Commission may impose sanctions as high
as those shown in the guidelines below … where appropriate to do so, a
Regulatory commission may double the above sanctions for any subsequent breach
which occurs either within the same fixture or in any previous fixture within
the preceding 12 months. Please note that a Regulatory Commission may exceed
the above sanctions in circumstances where it deems appropriate at its absolute
discretion."
Manchester City Football Club
In coming to a decision,
the Commission took into account that MCFC had no previous record of conduct infringements.
This was the first incident of this nature involving MCFC and the Commission
considered this to be a strong mitigating factor, when determining an
appropriate sanction. Further, it noted that MCFC had admitted the charge, at
the earliest opportunity and as such credit would be given by way of a
reduction in the overall sanction that the Commission was originally minded to
apply.
Given the above, MCFC was
fined the sum of £35,000
Chelsea Football Club
In coming to a decision,
the Commission considered the previous sanctions imposed on CFC for prior
breaches of FA Rule E20.
Previous sanctions are as
follows:
- On 23 October 2011, the Club was fined £20,000 for an incident that occurred in a fixture v Queens Park Rangers;
- On 11 February 2015, the Club was fined £30,000 for an incident that occurred in a fixture v Everton Football Club;
- On 19 September 2015, the Club was fined £40,000 for an incident that occurred in a fixture v Arsenal Football Club;
- On 24 October 2015, the Club was fined £50,000 for an incident that occurred in a fixture v West Ham United Football Club;
- On 13 January 2016, the Club was fined £65,000 for an incident that occurred in a fixture v West Bromwich Albion Football Club; and
- On 2 May 2016, the Club was fined £290,000 for an incident that occurred in a fixture v Tottenham Hotspur Football Club.
The Commission noted that this was the seventh incident of a similar nature concerning CFC and as such, the Commission could not ignore such an aggravating factor and would have to take that into account when determining the level of sanction. Further, the Commission also noted that CFC had admitted the charge against them, at the earliest opportunity. As such, credit was given by way of reduction in the overall sanction that the Commission was originally minded to impose.
Despite the reduction awarded, the fine imposed on
Chelsea was £100,000, given the club's previous conduct history.
In Chelsea's previous breaches, it should be noted
that the Commission referred to dates as far back as 2011, despite the guidance
stating that sanctions can be doubled where a breach occurs in previous
fixtures within the preceding 12 months. This suggests that the Commission has
the power to apply discretion to the individual circumstances and history of
the clubs involved.
This case highlights the importance of a club's
previous conduct history, in both the determination of sanctions and also in
any mitigation pleas. It provides a tough lesson and stresses the importance of
good behaviour on-the-pitch.
IMPORTANT: This post is not intended to be a legal briefing, it is not intended to be a statement of the law and no action should be taken in reliance on it without specific legal advice.
No comments:
Post a Comment