IN THE MATTER OF A FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION INDEPENDENT REGULATORY COMMISSION
BETWEEN:
THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION
The Association
The Participants
- and -
(1) CHELSEA FOOTBALL CLUB
(2) TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR FOOTBALL CLUB
________________________________________________________
WRITTEN REASONS FOR THE DECISION
OF THE INDEPENDENT REGULATORY COMMISSION
FOLLOWING THE HEARING ON
10TH MAY 2016
_________________________________________________________
- 1.
- BACKGROUND
1.1 On 2nd May 2016, Chelsea FC played Tottenham Hotspur FC in a Premier
League match at Stamford Bridge. The outcome of the match was potentially of great significance to the race to become Premier League champions for the 2015/16 season; anything other than a win for Tottenham would confirm Leicester City FC as champions. And so it proved to be; Tottenham were 2-0 up at half-time, but Chelsea scored two second half goals to draw the match 2-2.
1.2 The game was ill-tempered and at times threatened to get out of control. The match referee, Mark Clattenburg, issued nine cautions to Tottenham players, a Premier League record for a single match, and three to Chelsea. There were also three mass confrontations between the opposing teams, another unprecedented and highly dubious record.
1.3 Mr. Clattenburg prepared Extraordinary Incident Reports following the match, which may be summarised as follows:
(i) Players from both teams were involved an in altercation in the 45th minute, resulting in one player from each team being cautioned. Although he did not witness the incident at the time, it was subsequently brought to Mr.
Clattenburg’s attention that a Tottenham player, Mousa Dembele, had his
hand in the face of Diego Costa of Chelsea and appeared to gouge with his fingers towards the eyes of the latter. If he had seen the incident, Mr. Clattenburg would have sent Mr. Dembele from the field of play for violent conduct.
(ii) In the 83rd minutes, a mass confrontation took place between both sets of players. It followed a tackle by the Tottenham player, Eric Dier, on Eden Hazard of Chelsea, which resulted in Mr. Dier receiving a caution.
(iii) At the end of the match, there was a further altercation involving many players and coaching staff from both teams. Mr. Clattenburg says that he witnessed Michael Emenalo of Chelsea encouraging several of his teammates to return to the tunnel to further their involvement in the situation. Mr. Clattenburg also witnessed several players pushing one another, which led to the Chelsea Manager, Gus Hiddink, ending up on the ground inside the dug-out area.
1.3 There is also video evidence of the three confrontation incidents from various sources and taken from different angles.
- 2.
- CHARGES
2.1 The FA issued charge letters against both Clubs, dated 4th May 2016, charging
them with three separate breaches of FA Rule E20(a). In Chelsea’s case, the
alleged breaches are:
2
(i) That in or around the 45th minute of the fixture, the Club failed to ensure that its players and/or officials conducted themselves in an orderly fashion and/or refrained from provocative behaviour;
(ii) That in or around the 87th minute of the match, the Club failed to ensure that its players conducted themselves in an orderly fashion and/or refrained from provocative behaviour; and
(iii) That following the end of the fixture, the Club failed to ensure that its players and/or officials conducted themselves in an orderly fashion and/or refrained from provocative behaviour.
2.2 The same charges were levelled at Tottenham, save that the first alleged breach at paragraph 2.1(i) above included an additional element, namely an allegation of violent behaviour.
2.3 Further, the respective charge letters stated that the case had been designated as
Non-Standard for the following reasons: (i) The persistent nature of the reported behaviour; (ii) The cumulative nature of the reported behaviour; (iii) The level of aggression; (iv) The involvement of the technical area occupants; (v) The potential for crowd incitement; (vi) The proximity of the incidents to the crowd; and (vii) Three previous breaches of FA Rule E20(a) committed by Chelsea, and one such breach by Tottenham, during the preceding 12 months:
2.4 Both Clubs admitted the charges. Initially, Chelsea did not request a personal hearing and provided a letter setting out its mitigation. Tottenham provided a detailed letter in mitigation and requested a personal hearing.
3
2.5 Following cross-disclosure by both Clubs, Chelsea also applied for a personal hearing. The application was approved by the Chairman of the Judicial Panel (or his nominee) in accordance within the relevant regulations contained within The FA Handbook 2015/16.
2.6 Under Regulation 9(a) of The FA’s Regulations for Disciplinary Action, any
club which has six or more individual players cautioned or dismissed from the Field of Play in the same match will be offered the standard punishment of £25,000. Such a fine has automatically been imposed on Tottenham. It follows that that particular sanction is not part of our considerations, although the overall background circumstances of the case clearly are.
- 3.
- THE HEARING BEFORE THE REGULATORY COMMISSION
3.1 At the hearing before the Independent Regulatory Commission on 10th May
2016, The FA was represented by Mr. Yousif Elagab, Regulatory Advocate. Chelsea was represented by Mr. David Barnard, Director/Club Secretary, and Mr. James Bonnington, Head of Legal. Tottenham was represented by Ms. Rebecca Britain, Football Secretary, and Ms. Rebecca Caplehorn, Director of Football Operations. The submissions that were made were concise and helpful.
Antecedents
3.2 Since both Clubs had admitted the charges against them, the Regulatory
Commission was initially provided with details of their relevant antecedents for breaches of FA Rule E20:
Chelsea (i) October 2011 (ii) February 2015 (iii) September 2015 (iv) October 2015 (v) January 2016
£20,000 fine (standard) £30,000 (non-standard) £40,000 (non-standard) £50,000 (non-standard) £65,000 (non-standard)
4
Tottenham (i) November 2014 (ii) December 2015
£20,000 (standard) £20,000 (standard)
3.3 On behalf of The FA, Mr Elagab submitted that blame for each of the three confrontations should be borne equally. That approximation was not seriously challenged by either Club, although both relied in mitigation on the context in which they occurred, in differing ways. It was therefore not necessary for the Regulatory Commission to dissect each of the three incidents in order to make formal findings and to forensically apportion responsibility. Following a consideration of the written and oral submissions, together with the video evidence, we make the following observations.
First incident – 45th minute
3.4 The first incident was prompted by a display of aggressive body language between Willian of Chelsea and Danny Rose of Tottenham. It was followed by
reciprocal physical acts of pushing one another’s chest. When this happened,
the Tottenham Manager, Mauricio Pochettino, left his technical area and entered the field of play. He was the closest person to the incident and we infer from the footage, and accept, that his intention was to diffuse the altercation between the two players. Mr. Clattenburg did not report Mr. Pochettino for leaving his technical area.
3.5 What started as an altercation between two players quickly descended into a mass confrontation between a large number of opposing players. Technical staff also became involved as the incident happened close to the two technical areas.
Mr. Pochettino’s involvement may have heightened tensions, although we
noted from the video footage that a player from each team arrived at the incident very shortly after him. If he had not intervened they would have done so, potentially with similar consequences given the febrile atmosphere.
5
3.6 Mr. Pochettino quickly found himself embroiled in a melee, holding his hands up in an attempt to diffuse what had become an ugly situation.
3.7 Moreover, one of the satellite individual confrontations that ensued between players involved Mr. Dembele and Mr. Costa. What sparked it is unclear, but
the coming together between them culminated in Mr. Dembele’s eye gouge
motion referred to above. Chelsea submitted that the incident increased the volatility in the stadium. To those who witnessed the incident, that is
conceivable, although the Commission was struck by Mr. Costa’s rather
sanguine reaction.
3.8 Overall, the first incident lasted approximately 35 seconds before order was restored, but was long enough for the following aggravating features to have been present, and for which both Clubs were responsible: (i) The potential incitement of the crowd; (ii) The proximity of the incident to the crowd; (iii) The involvement of technical staff; (iv) The level of aggression shown; and (v) The overall context of the fixture, having regard to its significance.
3.9 In addition, there was admitted violent conduct on the part of Mr. Dembele. He has been the subject of a separate individual misconduct charge by The FA, and given a six-match ban by another Regulatory Commission. We note that although Mr. Dembele admitted the charge of violent conduct, but contended that the standard punishment that would otherwise apply to the offence was sufficient. That argument was rejected. In its capacity as his Club, Tottenham also has a separate corporate responsibility for his conduct under Rule E20 and
Mr. Dembele’s actions represent a serious aggravating feature arising out of
this incident.
6
Second incident –87th minute
3.10 There can be no dispute that this incident was triggered by Mr. Dier’s challenge on Mr. Hazard. By this point in the match, Chelsea had drawn level with Tottenham, who had led 2-0. Mr. Dier was cautioned. Four Chelsea players can be seen rushing to the incident, including Jon Obi Mikel who had to cover some distance. Mr. Clattenburg was at one point surrounded by players. Again, a mass confrontation ensued, with satellite arguments developing. It is possible to discern some players attempting to placate others and/or to remove them from the centre of the main confrontation as it splintered. Mr. Mikel received a caution for his involvement.
3.11 The second incident lasted approximately 20 seconds and on a like-for-like comparison was less serious than the first. It occurred just off-centre in the pitch, about half way between the centre circle and Tottenham penalty area. Consequently, it was further removed from the crowd than the first incident. There was no violent conduct. Additionally, no coaching or technical staff were involved. Nevertheless, the second incident shared the following aggravating features in common with the first: (i) The potential incitement of the crowd; (ii) The level of aggression shown; and (iii) The overall context of the fixture, having regard to its significance.
3.12 Moreover, the fact that this was the second mass confrontation to occur during the match represents a very serious aggravating feature.
The third incident – after the match
3.13 Immediately after the final whistle, both sets of players conducted themselves calmly. Some can be seen shaking hands. The Tottenham players acknowledged their supporters. Players from both sides walked from the pitch in the direction of the tunnel. In doing so, there was a convergence of the two sets of players, together with Managers, technical staff, and unused substitutes.
7
3.14 Who or what sparked the mass confrontation at the mouth of the tunnel is difficult to identify with precision. Shortly before the end of the match, a Chelsea player, Cesc Fabregas, claimed that a Tottenham player, Erik Lamela, had deliberately stood on his hand as he (Mr. Fabregas) was crouching on the ground. Mr. Clattenburg did not see that particular incident, but one of his Assistant Referees did. As the incident had been witnessed by a match official, no further action could be taken pursuant to FA Regulations.
3.15 At the end of the match, it appears as if Mr. Hiddink may have been ushering
Mr. Fabregas, towards the tunnel. As he was doing so, Mr. Rose moved quickly in their general direction. Mr. Hiddink was knocked over, either by Mr. Rose, or by another person with whom Mr. Rose first made contact. We were unable to infer any intention on the part of Mr. Rose, or any other person, to cause Mr. Hiddink to fall, although it does appear to have happened as a direct or indirect
consequence of Mr. Rose’s actions. There was no evidence before us as to why
Mr. Hiddink may have been encouraging Mr. Fabregas to leave the pitch - if indeed he was doing that - or what prompted Mr. Rose to act as he did.
3.16 Some Chelsea players then came to Mr. Hiddink’s assistance. Again, there was
no evidence before us as to whether they may have thought that he had been deliberately pushed. As with the two previous confrontations, this one deteriorated very rapidly. It is impossible to disentangle each and every subplot, but what is notable from the footage is the Tottenham substitute goalkeeper, Michel Vorm, in a highly agitated state. He became involved with Mr. Costa and the pair grappled with one another for some time, before they were eventually separated. Mr. Vorm remained very excitable as a member of
Tottenham’s technical staff attempted to remove him from the incident. The
Commission also noted the involvement of an unidentified track-suited Chelsea official who, in common with others, took part in the multiple episodes of pushing and shoving that occurred.
8
3.17 Chelsea challenge Mr. Clattenburg’s perception of Mr. Emenalo’s intentions. It
was claimed on his behalf that he was trying to beckon stewards to assist in quelling the incident - not encouraging players to inflame it. On this issue, we had a report from Mr. Clattenburg, but which was un-tested in crossexamination and no direct evidence from Mr. Emanalo, merely an assertion as to what his case was. If he had been beckoning players, it would represent an
aggravating feature of Chelsea’s involvement in this incident. Conversely, it
would be a mitigating factor if he was asking stewards to help to diffuse the situation. In the context of the overall level of the sanction that we intend to oppose on the Club, a finding on this issue was unlikely to make a sufficiently material difference to justify an adjournment of the case to hear live oral evidence. We have no reason to doubt Mr. Clattenburg’s understanding at the time, but beyond that it is not necessary for us to make any positive finding regarding Mr. Emenalo’s actual intentions, one way or the other.
3.19 The third incident lasted somewhere in the region of one minute from start to finish, and contained multiple aggravating features: (i) The potential incitement of the crowd; (ii) The proximity of the incident to the crowd; (iii) The involvement of technical staff and reserves; (iv) The involvement of stewards; (v) The level of aggression involved; (vi) The duration of the incident; and (vii) The overall context of the fixture, having regard to its significance.
3.20 Moreover, this was the third mass confrontation of the match, and represented an even greater and more serious aggravating feature than the second, if that were possible.
9
- 4.
- SANCTIONS
4.1 The match in question was watched, listened to, and followed by millions around the world. The potentially pivotal nature of the result meant that it assumed even greater significance and attention than a London derby between the two Clubs would otherwise have done. The image, reputation and standing of the Premier League and English football generally is seriously damaged by the shameful conduct of both Clubs which punctuated the match. Three mass confrontations in one match sets a new low point in terms of the bad example that it conveys, particularly to impressionable junior and youth footballers. Even when one makes generous allowance for the significance of the occasion,
and the potential effect that the result proved to have on Tottenham’s title
challenge, the level of ill-discipline that was shown was grossly and repeatedly in excess of what could be regarded as acceptable robust conduct. In order to protect the best interests of the game, multiple breaches of this kind simply cannot be tolerated and nothing other than severe penalties are indicated.
Chelsea
4.2 Chelsea’s record of antecedents for breaches of Rule E20 is abysmal. This was
the fourth time during the 2015/16 season that it has been charged with such an offence, and the fifth occasion in 15 months. There is a recidivist nature to the
Club’s offending under this particular regulatory provision, which troubled us
greatly. Modest increments in the financial penalties imposed by successive Regulatory Commissions have clearly had little, if any, deterrent effect.
4.3 The FA’s Guidance For Participants and Clubs is sent to all clubs in the football
pyramid prior to the commencement of each new season. The publication for the 2015-16 season includes a section which gives guidance under the heading
“Players in mass confrontations with other players”, including the following:
10
“In non -standard cases you are reminded of the maximum sanction available to a Regulatory Commission where a case has been found proven:
-
Premier League Clubs: £250,000
…
- -
- For serious cases involving discriminatory or violent behaviour or an
extended period of disorder the deduction of two points will also be considered.
T he above maximum penalties are doubled for a repetition.”
4.4 It follows that the maximum financial penalty that can be imposed by a
Regulatory Commission for three mass confrontations in a match is £750,000. Subject to that, in non-standard offences, the level of financial penalties that breaches of Rule E20 for mass confrontations should attract is entirely at the discretion of a Regulatory Commission, taking into account all of the relevant circumstances of a particular case. There is no tariff for such cases, although the entry level fine is likely to be significantly higher than the fine of £20,000 for Premier League clubs where a mass confrontation charge is admitted and the standard penalty accepted.
4.5 In the present case, there is no allegation against Chelsea of discriminatory or violent behaviour. The third incident was considerably longer than either the first or second, and there is a respectable argument that it was “extended” as contemplated by the Guidance. As a discrete offence, though, and absent any other aggravating features, it would not be sufficiently serious to warrant
consideration of a points’ deduction.
4.6 However, it does not follow that a Regulatory Commission cannot impose a
points’ deduction if the indications given in the Guidance are not made out. It is
just that: guidance, whose main purpose is to help players, clubs, and their
officials to understand The FA’s Rules and Regulations, and to abide by them.
11
4.7 The Guidance is also of assistance to a Regulatory Commission, but what
constitutes a sufficiently “serious” case to warrant consideration of a points’
deduction for a breach of Rule E20 must be considered - after the League has been invited to make any observations that it may have - on a case-by-case basis. The Guidance cannot reasonably be expected to cover all of the myriad circumstances that may present themselves.
4.8 If it were otherwise, the only sanction that would be available to a Regulatory
Commission for an E20 breach arising out of a match confrontation would be a fine, unless one or more of the three factors referred to in the Guidance was established (i.e. discriminatory and/or violent behaviour and/or an extended
period of disorder). A club’s previous record could never be taken into account,
however bad it might be. Such a factor is clearly relevant and should be considered, in all the circumstances of any given case.
4.9 The unprecedented commission of three mass confrontations in a single
Premier League match, coupled with Chelsea’s multiple previous breaches of
FA Rule E20 in such a compressed time frame - which save for the historical one in 2011 were all non-standard cases - creates such a serious combination of factors that in our judgment a sanction other than a financial penalty should be considered. We have no confidence at all that yet another relatively modest increase in the level of a fine will have any deterrent effect. If previous fines
have been shared amongst players, Chelsea’s record of repeated offending
indicates that there is insufficient individual and collective responsibility amongst at least some of them.
4.10 Ultimately, though, we decided not to impose a points’ deduction on Chelsea
for these reasons:
12
(i) It is reasonable to infer from the number of cautions that Chelsea received
(three), compared with Tottenham (nine), that the latter was guilty of a substantially greater level of ill-discipline - foul-play and otherwise - during the match. The charges focus attention on the relatively brief periods when the confrontations took place, but what took place during the other 88 minutes, or so, of the match should be taken into account in order to place the confrontations in context;
(ii) Chelsea was not charged with violent or discriminatory conduct; (iii) Apart from the half-time interval, neither Club had any real opportunity to warn its players about their responsibilities; and
(iv) Despite being a repeat offender under Rule E20, a very substantially increased financial penalty has yet to be imposed on Chelsea, or a final warning that such transgressions simply cannot continue if a future Regulatory Commission is not to resort to other more draconian penalties.
