Sent to Bulgarian Football Union 18 Vitoshko lale Str. BG - 1616 Sofia Bulgaria
Decision
of the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body on
28 October 2019
Chairman: Partl Thomas (AUT)
Vice-Chairman: Hansen Jim Stjerne (DEN)
Member: Lorenz Hans (GER)
Disciplinary Case: 33197 - EURO - 2019/20
Incidents: Throwing of objects - Art. 16 (2) (b) DR Racist behaviour - Art. 14 DR Causing a disturbance during a national anthem - Art. 16 (2) (g) DR Replays on giant screen, Art. 42 Safety and Security Regulations Competition: European Championship 2020
Match: Bulgaria vs. England, 14.10.2019
Referee: Ivan Bebek (CRO)
2 | Page
I. Facts of the case
1. The elements set out below are a summary of the main relevant facts, as established by the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body (CEDB) on the basis of the official reports, the written submissions, the exhibits filed and the statements produced by the Bulgarian Football Union (the “association”) in the course of the CEDB proceedings. While the CEDB has considered all the facts, allegations, legal arguments and evidence submitted by the association in these proceedings, it refers in this decision only to the submissions and evidence it considers necessary to explain its reasoning.
2. The facts of this case, as stated in the official reports provided by the referee, the UEFA match delegate and the UEFA security officer, and in the further report provided by the FARE observer present at the European Championship 2020 Qualifying Round match between the A-national teams of the association and the English Football Association, played on 14 October 2019 in Bulgaria (the “match”), are as follows:
UEFA match delegate’s report
“The second, third and fourth English goal were scored with attacking players in very tight onside/offside positions. The giant screen operator showed the live feed replay in all three occasions taking the risk of showing a controversial referee decision.”
In the 7th minute after England scored the first goal a half litre plastic bottle was thrown towards the English players celebrating the goal near the running track. The bottle came from Sector V and landed on the running track without hitting the players.
A consistent number of Bulgarian supporters whistled the English national anthem during its execution before the match. Moreover, the below mentioned discriminatory behaviour is taken into account for this assessment.
Just before the end of the warming up time, the English Security Manager […] informed me and the fourth official that he was told by English players n. 2 Kieran Trippier, n. 5 Tyrone Mings, n. 21 Callum Wilson and n. 16 Declan Rice that when they ran into the pitch towards Sector V (the stand opposite to the main one) occupied by Bulgarian supporters, they heard some monkey chanting lasting a few seconds coming from some individuals. Neither me, nor other UEFA officials were present there to assess this occurrence. [The English Security Manager] asked me if we were going to implement the first step in case of racism acts but I informed him that the three step procedures apply to the match. I asked the home match manager […] if he wanted to deliver a proactive message but he preferred not to do so because it would have raised the tension in the stadium. During the warming up, no more racist abuse occurred.
Due to this reporting, for the first 20 minutes of the match I stayed on the running track very close to the block 17 and 18 in the Sector B, stand occupied by local supporters […]. On the occasion of English attacks (in particular when n. 7 Raheem Sterling gained ball possession), the crowd booed the players and I could also hear from my position some isolate monkey chants for a couple of seconds in particular between the 12th and 14th
3 | Page
coming from approximately half dozen of local supporters seated in different points of the stand. This was not of a strong magnitude and intensity so I decided to keep waiting for further actions.
In the 26th minute the English team coach Mr. Southgate coming from the technical area informed the fourth official that player n. 5 Tyrone Mings complained he was targeted by racist abuse. The fourth official asked exactly what happened and Mr. Southgate said that the player has heard some monkey chanting coming from sector V. Me and the referee team we did not heard this specific monkey chanting. Nevertheless, the referee, who was called and informed by the fourth official decided to implement the first step procedure in case of acts of racism and the relevant message was delivered in the 27th minute. Also in light of the previous mentioned facts, I considered it an adequate decision. The match stoppage lasted approximately three minutes. In the 42nd minute Mr. Southgate coming from the technical area went another time to the fourth official to inform that again the player n. 5 Tyrone Mings heard some monkey chanting from Sector V. The fourth official asked Mr. Southgate to describe the incident. Mr. Southgate informed about a few monkey chanting lasting some seconds. At that point the fourth official called the referee to the touchline to inform him. The referee explained to the coach and the captain that he also heard some isolated monkey chants from a few people and that a strong magnitude and high intensity of racist abuse was not there to implement the second step. In that moment I joined the referee, the coach and players and I supported the opinion of the referee. At that point the coach and players, included n. 5, agreed with the decision to continue the match, which was finally taken by me and the referee.
During the second half there was no particular incident related to racism. After the final whistle Mr. Southgate went into the pitch to greet the referee and to say he was satisfied with the way the racist behaviour from the crowd was managed by the officials. After the match, together with the UEFA Security Officer, we invited the Mr. Southgate [and other officials] to come to the referees’ dressing room to evaluate and provide an explanation of the actions taken during the match and the UEFA procedures in case of racism of a strong magnitude and intensity. Mr. Southgate and the other officials understood and were okay with the decisions taken. Fare observer informed me after the match that they witnessed sporadically racist chanting by Bulgarian home supporters throughout the first half directed to the player n. 7 Raheem Sterling, n. 5 Tyrone Mings and to n. 11 Marcus Rashford. In particularly after the third goal with chants coming from Sector B. They lasted a few seconds and it was difficult to say how many, possibly 10 to 20 spectators. As at that moment I was back in the VIP stand I could not hear this from my position due also to the largeness of the bowl. Fare observer also made me aware that on TV and on social media some Bulgarian fans could be seen making the nazi salutes in the stand during the match. Personally I have not witnessed directly this incident reported to me. I did not receive any information about individuated or arrested home supporters so assume no action was taken right after the match. The authority will check the CCTV footages and according to the Home Match Manager, they are available to pass the entire video footage to UEFA disciplinary.” 4 | Page
UEFA security officer’s report
“Before the match at the time UEFA Security Officer was at the away entrance outside the stadium, [the] England Security Manager informed the UEFA Match Delegate and the fourth official that he was informed by England players nr. 2, 5 ,16 & 21 that these four players were targeted by monkey chants addressed by Bulgarian fans in Tribune V at the time they ran onto the pitch for the warm-up. In minute 26, UEFA Security Officer observed from the running track that Mr. Southgate (ENG coach) was discussing with the fourth official after some monkey chants were audible from Tribune V and Tribune B, Block 20. Following this discussion, a public PA message was addressed in minute 27 to warn the supporters asking them to immediately desist from further racist behaviour. The match was stopped for 3 minutes.
In minute 42, UEFA Security Officer observed from running track that Mr. Southgate (ENG coach) was discussing again with the four official. First the referee and afterwards the Match Delegate joined the discussion. UEFA Security Officer was informed by both referee and Match Delegate that ENG player #5 had heard some isolated monkey chants from Tribune V. Following the referee, the chants were not that strong magnitude nor that high intensity to activate Step 2. UEFA Match Delegate confirmed the decision of the referee.
In minute 43, about 30 Bulgarian supporters […] were ejected by police from Block 20 of Tribune B due to their misbehaviour.
During the second half, UEFA Security Officer noticed on internet websites that during the match, Bulgarian fans […] have making Nazi salutes from the home sectors (Please, refer to pictures) THROWING OF OBJECTS (by Bulgarian fans).
In minute 7, following the first England goal scoring, a 50cl open plastic bottle was thrown from Block 29 of Tribune V in the direction of England players who were celebrating the goal. The bottle landed on the running track and the water squirted out. No one was hit and the bottle was removed by a steward
Bulgarian fans were disturbing the England national anthem by whistling.”
Referee’s report
“Before the match after the Referees warming up the 4th official […] was informed by the security manager of England […] that the England players N2, N5, N21 and N16 were racially abused by short monkey chants, when they entered their warming up area. We reported this to the match delegate and the security officer and we as a referee team did not make any further actions related to this incident.
In the 26th minute the 4th official was informed by England manager Gareth Southgate that he had received complaints from player N5 Mings that he had heard some monkey chants by fans from Sector V. Me, as a referee and the rest of my team, we could not hear the chants, however we decided to apply Step 1 from the 3 steps procedure for racist 5 | Page
behavior. The announcement was read on the PA system in the 27th minute and the stoppage lasted approximately 3 minutes.
In the 42nd minute the 4th official received another complain by England officials related to racist abuse (monkey chants) to player N 5 Mings. In this moment me and my second assistant also heard some isolated monkey chants which lasted for a couple of seconds, from few spectators behind the second assistant (Sector V). I approached the touchline and communicated with the Mr Southgate this incident, he confirmed it was a few spectator for a couple of seconds and I explained him that according to the guidelines for match officials for racist behavior (annex XIV) the racist behavior should be of strong magnitude and intensity. At that point the UEFA delegate joined us and I communicated and agreed with him the decision not to stop the match.
Mr. Southgate spoke with his team and they were satisfied with the fact that we are aware of the isolated monkey chants and they agreed with our decision not to stop the match in that moment. I must say that player N 5 Mings, who was the subject of the racist abuse, was also satisfied with the explanation. I must stress out the very cooperative attitude from mr Southgate in this moment This stoppage lasted approximately 3 minutes.
The second half was incident free.
After the final whistle mr. Southgate approached me on the pitch to congratulate and express his satisfaction with our cooperation during the critical moments.”
FARE observer’s report
“- 20:45 Kick-off - 21:08 Approximately in the 23rd minute into the game, a small group of Bulgaria national team supporters in Sector C […] (ENG ‘V’) directed racist monkey noises at England player Tyron Mings. The chanting lasted for several seconds. Fare observers did not manage to record video evidence due to the short duration of the chanting.
- 21:10 Approximately in the 25th minute into the game, several dozen Bulgaria national team supporters in Sector B […] directed racist monkey noises at Raheem Sterling when the player was fouled. The chanting lasted for several seconds. Fare observers did not manage to record video evidence due to the short duration of the chanting.
- 21:12 Approximately in the 27th minute into the game when the referee interrupted the match and the stadium announcement was made calling for fans to stop racist chanting, small groups of Bulgaria national team supporters in Sector B […] performed Nazi salutes. Fare observers did not manage to record video evidence due to the short duration of the incident.
- 21:17 Approximately in the 32nd minute into the game following the third goal scored by England, several dozen Bulgaria national team supporters in Sector B […] directed racist monkey noises at England players celebrating the goal. The chanting lasted for up to 10 seconds. 6 | Page
- Throughout the first half and less so in the second half, there have been several more episodes with racist monkey chants performed by individual Bulgaria national team supporters at England players Tyron Mings, Raheem Sterling and Marcus Rashford specifically from Sector A […], Sector B […] and Sector C […] (ENG ‘V’). The incidents were lasting for several seconds and were not possible to record on video in most cases.
II. The association’s statements
The association in its statements dated 28 October 2019 essentially stated the following:
- Above all, the association reiterates the events preceding the game which created the atmosphere for the potential occurrence of the aforementioned incidents. As became apparent, these circumstances were used by a minor group of Bulgarian fans acting in opposition to the association.
-Consistent and aggressive active propaganda was made by the English media and the English national team officials prior to the Match. Unfounded charges for racism were published in English newspapers. Racist accusations were insinuated by the English Football Association’s manager in public statements. The Bulgarian supporters were accused and labelled as racists before the match had even started from the highest official stage in the English national football team, even though Bulgarian fans have no recent history of racial abuse. It should be underlined that the sanction that the association received was for the display of a banner of an organisation whose symbols are permitted by Bulgarian law but are featured in the FARE booklet. Further, during the past years, the association has addressed the issue numerous times that a small group of supporters would use monkey chants aiming to malign the association until its president resigns.
- Accordingly, immediately before the start of the Match, the English Security Manager requested the implementation of the first step of the three-step protocol in case of racisct acts, because of allegations of racist behaviour by Bulgarian supporters. However, as reported by the UEFA match delegate, “[n]either me, nor other UEFA officials were present to assess this occurrence."
- However, in order to counter the unnecessarily created tension, the association procured all security measures to limit any racist incidents form occurring during the Match. The association doubled the number of private security stewards which were especially briefed about the FARE Network Guide and effectively cooperated with the police to limit the presence of any person that might be affiliated with the so-called ”risk group" of fans at the stadium. No ideological, political, ethnical and religious propaganda occurred during the game either by symbols of extremists (including Nazi, racist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, etc.) or activities of the supporters who attended the match.
- The association regularly organises campaigns against any discriminatory behaviour and actively participates in the UEFA's campaigns; the leading players of the Bulgarian 7 | Page
national team took part in the FARE Network #FootballPeople campaign and the association produced both online and physical guides, banners and other forms of material in order to ensure a fair environment at the stadium.
- After the Match, the association, by fulfilling its policy against any misconduct related to the match, provided full assistance to the police by assisting with video recording, access to information, etc. and as a result, the Bulgarian police started an investigation for hooliganism against fourteen persons.
- Nevertheless, all the noise created by the media and officials in relation to the racism served to a minor group of Bulgarian fans to take advantage of it. Reportedly, "approximately half a dozen of local supporters made some isolated monkey chants for a couple of seconds.” Obviously, the described behaviour was organised by a few people and has to be reviewed as an isolated case. Moreover, the alleged monkey chants were not directed to the players on the pitch and were related to the disagreement with the association’s policy and the unsatisfactory results of the Bulgarian football team.
- In the light of the above, we would like to hereby underline that the claims and ungrounded allegations of racist behaviour by Bulgarian supporters continued throughout the entire game. Even the interruption of the game was done by the referee without having actually noticed any such actions, which is confirmed by the referee's report: "Me, as a referee and the rest of my team, we could not hear the chants, however we decided to apply Step 1 from 3 steps procedure for racist behaviour”. Furthermore, the referee has qualified the incidents as lacking "strong magnitude and high intensity".
- It is a well-known fact in Bulgaria that people often express disapproval or objection to policies and practices through sarcastic protest activities based on Bulgarian folklore. Some of these original types of protest are expressed through satirical and ironic remarks, gestures and chants with a purpose to amuse and simultaneously mock the targeted organisation. Proverbs and sayings are an unreplaceable part of Bulgarian folklore. Often, people use the proverb "to catch monkeys with wheat bran" or "it is impossible to catch monkeys with wheat bran". In the Bulgarian language, this proverb means that someone is aiming to achieve a specific goal with minimum effort or by using inappropriate methods, hence the entire endeavour is doomed to fail. The Bulgarians often protest against the policies of the government using the aforementioned sentence.
- The alleged monkey chants during the game are a type of expression which were directed against the association. Obviously, neither of the described incidents were directed against the football players on the pitch. The respective small number of supporters publicly addressed their dissent to the association’s policy. Their attitude apparently was organised and directed in order to malign the association. This is most evident from their demonstrative leaving of the stadium at halftime. The purpose of these supporters being in the stadium was not to express racism against the players, despite the fact that the FARE observers stated the opposite. Having said the above, 8 | Page
it must be clear that Bulgaria is not a racist country and there are many players from diverse ethnic groups playing in the association’s national team and the domestic championship, who are not subject to monkey chanting.
-If the CEDB considers that the aforementioned incidents were directed against the players on the pitch, we would kindly ask you to take into account all the preventive and reactive measures taken by the association and scale down the respective disciplinary measures or dispense with them entirely in accordance with Article 23(2) DR.
- Pursuant to the report of the UEFA match delegate, the alleged racist incidents were isolated, for a couple of seconds and from approximately half a dozen of local supporters only. In relation to the application of the principle of proportionality, we refer to the decision CAS 2002/A/423 PSV Eindhoven vs. UEFA, of 3 June 2003, at par. 6.1.2.2, where the CAS panel considered the following (translation in Digest of CAS Awards Ill 2001-2003, p. 537 et seq.): [...] The level of the fine should be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence committed by the PSV supporters. The sanction imposed against the appellant if only a small number of fans were guilty of xenophobic chanting or discriminatory behaviour must therefore be different from that applicable if the whole crowd had been involved. [...]'.
- Proportionally speaking, half a dozen of local supporters equals only 0,04% of the total number of 14,381 of the association’s supporters in the stadium during the game. Moreover, those supporters have left the stadium at halftime and reportedly "the second half was incident free". Hence, the association submits that the alleged incidents shall not be classified as a discriminatory behaviour of the crowd as specified in Article 14(1) DR, but as a coordinated and carefully organised attack by a very small group of people protesting against the association’s policies and the association itself.
- Furthermore, it is an isolated case and the stewards took immediate action to assist the police with identifying the persons responsible for these actions and for the immediate removal of the thrown bottle from the running track. The bottle caused no harm, as confirmed by the UEFA match delegate in his report: "The bottle came from Sector "V" and landed on the running track without hitting the players". This isolated incident was provoked by the player with number 7 from the away team (Marcus Rashford). Upon scoring the first goal of the game, the said player celebrated in front of the home-team supporters standing in Sectors "B" and "V". This celebration was aimed entirely at the home-team supporters and the scorer did not turn at all to the away-team supporters, who were situated at the exact opposite side of the stadium.
- Taking into account the abovementioned facts, we would like to note that in order to have a breach of Article 16(2)(b) DR, the inappropriate behaviour of the supporters shall include: (i) potentially endangering the physical integrity of others; or (ii) impacting the orderly running of the match. The facts and evidence provided by the UEFA match delegate, the referee and FARE are unanimous that these criteria have 9 | Page
not been fulfilled in order for the alleged breach to be considered to be committed, the bottle was thrown far from any person at the stadium and endangered neither the football players, nor other people present at the stadium and the normal course of the game was not affected in any way.
- Regarding the charge for the illicit use of the giant screen, the UEFA match delegate notes in his report that the replays are referring to the second, third and fourth English goals. We would like to bring your attention to the fact that all three goals are from clear onside positions of England's players, which was visible in real time and in all three situations the referees made the right decisions. The association explained each decision in detail. Further, the replays shown on the giant screen did not encourage or incite any form of crowd disorder, but they showed that the referees made the right decisions. Thus, the effect was to assert the referees' authority on and off the pitch, which was essential for a game with high tension due to actions of third parties.
- Regarding the disruption of the national anthems, the association underlines that its supporters have no recent history in relation to similar disrespectful acts of disruption of national anthems. These actions are of continuing relevance to the media provocations by the English officials in the weeks before the game imputed to the Bulgarian supporters prior to kick-off. Meanwhile, we have witnessed the same disrespectful acts of disruption of the Bulgarian national anthem by the English fans as well. Therefore, we consider that the sanctions (if any) should be of the same kind and gravity given that the alleged infringements are the same.
The more detailed arguments made by the association in support of its written submissions are set out below in as far as they are relevant.
III. Merits of the case
A. UEFA´s competence and relevant provisions to the case
5. Pursuant to Articles 33(3), 52 and 57 of the UEFA Statutes, as well as Article 29(3) of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations (DR), the CEDB is competent to deal with this case.
6. Pursuant to Article 5(a) DR, the UEFA Statutes, rules and regulations, in particular the DR, are applicable to these proceedings.
7. The following relevant provisions apply to the case at hand.
8. According to Article 8 DR, “[a] member association […] that is bound by a rule of conduct laid down in UEFA’s Statutes or regulations may be subject to disciplinary measures and directives if such a rule is violated as a result of the conduct of one of its members, players, officials or supporters or any other person exercising a function on behalf of the member association […]concerned, even if the member association […] concerned can prove the absence of any fault or negligence.” 10 | Page
9. According to Article 14 DR, “1 [a]ny person under the scope of Article 3 who insults the human dignity of a person or group of persons on whatever grounds, including skin colour, race, religion or ethnic origin, incurs a suspension lasting at least ten matches or a specified period of time, or any other appropriate sanction. 2 If one or more of a member association […] supporters engage in the behaviour described in paragraph 1, the member associaton […] responsible is punished with a minimum of a partial stadium closure […]. 6 The above disciplinary measures may be combined with specific directives aimed at tackling such conduct.”
10. According to Article 16(2) DR, “[…] all associations […] are liable for the following inappropriate behaviour on the part of their supporters and may be subject to disciplinary measures and directives even if they can prove the absence of any negligence in relation to the organisation of the match: […] (b) the throwing of objects potentially endangering the physical integrity of others present at the match or impacting the orderly running of the match; […] (g) causing disturbance during national anthems; […]”.
11. Pursuant to Article 5.01(e) of the Regulations of the UEFA European Football Championship (2018-20), “[o]n entering the competition, participating associations agree: […] to observe the UEFA Safety and Security Regulations for all matches in the competition; […]”.
12. According to Article 42.01 of the UEFA Safety and Security Regulations (“SSR”), “[t]he match organiser must ensure that images of the match on the stadium's giant screen are not likely to encourage or incite any form of crowd disorder. Images displayed must respect the principles of fair play and must not be accompanied by sound.”
13. Annex C to the SSR, Guidelines for Match Officials in cases of Racist Behaviour in Football Stadiums (so-called three-step protocol) reads as follows: “1 - Stop the match in case of serious racist incidents (a) When the referee becomes aware (in particular if he is informed by the UEFA match delegate through the fourth official) of racist behaviour (especially racist chants, insults and screams, banners, etc.) and if, in his opinion, this racist behaviour is of a strong magnitude and intensity, he shall, in application of Law 5 of the Game, stop the match and ask for an announcement to be made over the public address system (in the languages of both teams) requesting the public to immediately stop such racist behaviour. b. The match may resume only after the announcement has been made. 2 - Suspend the match in case of serious racist incidents (a) If the racist behaviour does not cease once the game has restarted (i.e. step 1 was ineffective), the referee shall suspend the match for a reasonable time period (for example 5 to 10 minutes) and request the teams to go to the dressing rooms. The UEFA match delegate shall, through the fourth official, assist the referee in determining whether the racist behaviour has ceased following step 1. (b) During this time period, the referee shall again ask for an announcement to be made over the public address system requesting the public to immediately stop such racist behaviour and warning them that this may even result in the match being abandoned. (c) During this suspension, the referee shall consult with the UEFA match delegate, the UEFA security officer and the relevant police and stadium and security authorities on the possible next steps, in particular the possibility to abandon the match. 3 - Abandon the match in case of serious racist incidents (a.) If the racist behaviour does not cease after the game has 11 | Page
restarted (i.e. step 2 was ineffective), the referee shall, as a very last resort, definitively abandon the match. The UEFA match delegate shall, through the fourth official, assist the referee in determining whether the racist behaviour has ceased following step 2. (b.) However, any decision by the referee to abandon a match in such circumstances shall only be taken after all other possible measures have been implemented and the impact of abandoning the match on the security of the players and the public has been assessed by means of a full and extensive consultation with the UEFA match delegate, the UEFA security officer and the relevant police and stadium security authorities. In principle, abandoning the match is subject to the agreement of all parties involved.”
14. According to Article 45 DR, “[f]acts contained in official UEFA reports are presumed to be accurate. Proof of their inaccuracy may, however, be provided.”
15. Pursuant to Article 23 DR, “1 [t]he competent disciplinary body determines the type and extent of the disciplinary measures to be imposed in accordance with the objective and subjective elements of the offence, taking account of both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. […] 3 Disciplinary measures can be reduced or increased by the competent disciplinary body on the basis of the circumstances of the specific case […].”
16. According to Article 25 DR, “1 [r]ecidivism occurs if another offence of a similar nature is committed within: […] (c) two years of the previous offence if that offence was related to order and security at UEFA competition matches; (d) three years of the previous offence in all other cases. 2 Recidivism counts as an aggravating circumstance.”
B. The responsibility of the association for the racist behaviour of its supporters
17. Article 14 DR is a special rule taking over the principle set out in Article 8 DR, which stipulates that associations are responsible for the racist conduct of their supporters. This responsibility applies to offences committed by any person supporting the team before, during or after the match, irrespective of the fault of the association in question.
18. The fight against racism is an extremely high priority for UEFA. In this sense, UEFA has a strict approach towards racism and discrimination on the pitch and in the stands. Any racist or discriminatory behaviour is considered a serious offence under the DR and shall be punished accordingly.
19. The CEDB acknowledges that, according to the official reports of the referee, the UEFA match delegate and the UEFA security officer, racist incidents were committed by supporters of the association on numerous occasions during the match. Such reports were also confirmed by the further report of the FARE observer present at the match.
20. Before the match had started, when players of the English national team entered the stadium to perform their warm-up, the England Security Manager reported to the UEFA match delegate and the fourth official that four players were targeted by monkey chants performed by the association’s supporters in Tribune V. This incident was however not personally witnessed by any UEFA official and there is no documentary evidence available in this regard to attest to the occurrence of such incident. 12 | Page
21. According to the official report of the UEFA match delegate, monkey chants directed at players of the English national team were witnessed between minutes 12 and 14 of the match and were performed by approximately half a dozen of the association’s supporters. Pursuant to said report, said chants were not of a strong magnitude and intensity, which is why it was decided by the referee and the 4th official that no further action was to be taken.
22. In the 26th minute of the match, it was observed by the UEFA security officer that monkey chants were made from Tribune V and Tribune B, Block 20. Following a discussion between the manager of the English national team and the fourth official, the referee decided to apply step 1 of the three-step procedure for racist incidents, i.e. a public announcement (“PA”) message was read to warn the association’s supporters, asking them to immediately refrain from further racist behaviour. The match was stopped for three minutes. According to the report of the FARE observer, supporters of the association performed Nazi salutes during the stoppage of the match. This observation was corroborated by photographic evidence, from which it can be clearly established that the reported Nazi salutes were in fact made by supporters of the association.
23. Furthermore, in the 42nd minute of the match, the 4th official received a further complaint from officials of the English national team relating to monkey chants which were apparently directed at the player wearing number 5, Tyrone Mings. According to the report of the referee, he and the second assistant also heard some isolated monkey chants which lasted for a couple of seconds, from a few spectators behind the second assistant situated in Tribune V. Following a discussion with the England manager, it was explained to the latter that for the three-step protocol for racist incidents to be triggered, it required the incidents to be of a strong magnitude and intensity. At that point, the UEFA match delegate joined the discussion and it was agreed not to stop the match. The England manager then spoke with his team and they were satisfied with the fact that these monkey chants were only isolated, and they agreed with the decision not to stop the match in that particular moment. During said discussions, the match was stopped for approximately three minutes.
24. Finally, it was reported that, in the 43rd minute of the match, about 30 of the association’s supporters were ejected by the police from Block 20 of Tribune B due to their misbehaviour. Following that, no further incidents occurred during the second half.
25. The CEDB recalls the arguments provided by the association with regard to the racist incidents. On a preliminary basis, the CEDB appreciates the various initiatives the association has undertaken to combat racism and to avoid racist incidents from happening during the matches of its national team. However, while such a proactive attitude is obviously commendable, it has no influence on the factual assessment of the various racist incidents which occurred during the match under scrutiny.
26. In this regard, the CEDB also acknowledges that there were in fact a lot of pre-match reports and comments about the match and potential racist incidents. It needs to be stressed, however, that such intensive and at times tendentious coverage of the match 13 | Page
neither impacted on the reporting of the incidents by the UEFA officials, nor did it impact the assessment of the facts of the present case by the CEDB, whose duty it is to apply the DR and the legal principles enshrined in it.
27. By the same token, the CEDB takes into account the allegation of the association that the incidents were not directly witnessed by the referee, and that he only applied step one of the three-step procedure because of complaints made by the England manager. However, the CEDB refers to the three-step protocol where it is clearly stipulated that for the protocol to be activated, it is sufficient that the referee has been made aware of racist incidents by the UEFA match delegate through the 4th official, i.e. it is not required that he has heard racist chants himself. The CEDB notes that this was exactly the case in the 26th minute of the match, when the referee only decided to activate step 1 of the three- step protocol following discussions with the UEFA match delegate and the 4th official, who found such reaction to such continuous racist chants to be adequate.
28. The same applies for the incidents which occurred in the 42nd minute of the match, where monkey chants performed by the association’s supporters were heard by the referee and his second assistant. Even though the chants were reported to be only isolated in nature and committed by a few supporters, albeit lacking a strong magnitude and intensity, not warranting the activation of step two of the three-step protocol, the CEDB stresses that the occurrence of the racist behaviour of the association’s supporters is clearly established. In this regard, the CEDB emphasises that the activation of the three-step protocol is not required to establish a violation of Article 14(2) DR, but would be regarded as an aggravating circumstance.
29. Regarding the arguments of the association that the monkey chants against English players were only an ironic or provocative way of the association’s supporters to protest against the association’s policies, the CEDB strongly rejects such explanations. Even if someone would assume that such racist behaviour was a form of protest, this would of course be equally unacceptable since acts of racism can, under no circumstances, be regarded as a valid form of protest.
30. Likewise, the CEDB rejects the analogy the association draws with regard to the proverb "to catch monkeys with wheat bran" or "it is impossible to catch monkeys with wheat bran". It is obvious from the video footage and the images at hand that, by making monkey chants to players of colour and by making Nazi salutes, the association’s supporters were not making “ironic remarks, gestures, chants with a purpose to amuse and simultaneously mocking the targeted organisation” as part of “Bulgarian folklore”, but instead, were directly targeting English players of colour with monkey chants to insult, dehumanise and abuse them. These insults, targeting the human dignity of the English players, are despicable, intolerable and warrant a strict application of the DR.
31. Hence, the violation of Article 14(2) DR has been established and by applying the principle of strict liability, the association shall be held liable for the conduct of its supporters, even if it is not at fault itself, a concept which has long been established in the case law of UEFA (as published on the UEFA website) and constantly confirmed by the CAS (cf. CAS 2002/A/423 PSV Eindhoven v. UEFA). 14 | Page
32. In view of the above, the CEDB concludes that the association needs to be punished for the racist behaviour displayed by its supporters and the violation of Article 14(2) DR accordingly.
C. The responsibility of the association for the throwing of one object
It shall be recalled that the throwing of objects is a serious offence as it can not only disrupt the orderly running of the match, but it could also endanger the physical integrity of the attendees, e.g. the spectators, officials, stewards and even the referee team and the players on the pitch. For this reason, the throwing of objects is strictly forbidden at UEFA matches.
In the present case, according to the official reports of the UEFA match delegate and the UEFA security officer, in the 7th minute of the match, following the first goal scored by the English national team, an open plastic bottle was thrown from Block 29 of Tribune V in the direction of the English players who were celebrating the goal. The bottle landed on the running track and nobody was hit.
In its submission, the association referred to Article 16(2)(b) DR, where it is stipulated that only such throwing of objects can be sanctioned if it potentially endangers the physical integrity of others present at the match. In this regard, the CEDB wishes to emphasise that it is not necessary for someone to be hit by the object which was thrown, as said provision merely refers to the objective dangerousness of the item which was thrown and the potential threat it poses. Obviously, its needs to be considered as a very dangerous act when an item such as a filled plastic bottle is thrown in the direction of a player on the pitch.
Reference is made in this regard to the 2018/19 UEFA Europa League match between SK Sturm Graz and AEK Larnaca played on 9 August 2018, on the occasion of which an assistant referee positioned on the side-line was hit with a plastic cup and had to be brought to the hospital, being treated for a bleeding head wound. This, in view of the CEDB, illustrates that whenever objects of such nature are being thrown in a stadium, serious consequences can derive from such actions, which is why the CEDB is not willing to tolerate such behaviour.
Finally, the CEDB would like to recall that, in application of the principle of strict liability as described in Article 16(2) DR, the association shall be held liable for the conduct of its supporters, even if not at fault itself, as has been regularly confirmed by the well- established jurisprudence of the UEFA disciplinary bodies (as published on the UEFA website) and of CAS (cf. CAS 2013/A/3047 FC Zenit St. Petersburg v. Football Union of Russia).
Consequently, according to Article 16(2)(b) DR, the association is to be held responsible for the throwing of objects by its supporters and must be sanctioned accordingly. 15 | Page
D. The responsibility of the association for causing a disturbance during the national anthem
39. In the case at hand, it was reported by the UEFA match delegate and the UEFA security officer that the supporters of the association were disturbing the England national anthem by whistling.
40. The CEDB notes that disrupting an opponent’s national anthem is contrary to established principles of fair play and respect. The playing of the national anthem is an important moment for each player representing his come country, and by disrupting such special event, supporters show a great disrespect to the players on the pitch, the participating association and the country itself.
41. While it is true that the visiting supporters of the English Football Association committed the same disrespectful acts, such offence will be assessed and judged in separate proceedings that have no impact on the present proceedings opened against the association.
42. Since the occurrence of causing a disturbance during the national anthem has been established and the association has admitted the incident, it shall be held responsible for the violation of Article 16(2)(g) DR by its supporters, in application of the abovementioned principle of strict liability, and must be punished accordingly.
E. The responsibility of the association for illicit replays on giant screen
43. It was reported by the UEFA match delegate that the second, third and fourth goals scored by the English national team were scored “with attacking players in very tight onside/offside positions”. According to such official report, the giant screen operator showed the live feed replay on all three occasions, thereby taking the risk of showing a controversial referee decision.
44. In this regard, the CEDB notes that the association did not dispute that the relevant replays were actually displayed on the giant screen, but was merely alleging that the scenes were not controversial at all since all decisions taken by the referee were clearly correct, which is supported by the fact that no unrest was caused by showing these replays.
45. The CEDB recalls the content of Article 42.01 SSR, according to which the match organiser must ensure that images of the match on the stadium's giant screen are not likely to encourage or incite any form of crowd disorder. Images displayed must respect the principles of fair play and must not be accompanied by sound.
46. In this sense, the CEDB recalls that the UEFA match delegate has clearly described the scenes that were replayed on the giant screen to be controversial and potentially encouraging a reaction from the crowd. The association did not provide any evidence 16 | Page
which would challenge the facts stated in such official report, which are presumed to be accurate (cf. Article 45 DR).
47. The CEDB therefore comes to the conclusion that the association violated Article 42.01 SSR by showing the relevant replays on the giant screen and must be punished accordingly.
IV. The determination of the appropriate disciplinary measure
48. According to Article 23 DR, the CEDB determines the type and extent of the disciplinary measures to impose in accordance with the objective and subjective elements of the case, taking account of any aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
49. In the present case, the CEDB appreciates that there is a multiplicity of offences for which the association is responsible.
50. Regarding the racist behaviour, the CEDB acknowledges that the association has already been punished for the violation of Article 14 DR once within the last three years (cf. Article 25(1)(d) DR), which counts as an aggravating circumstance as per Article 25(2) DR.
51. The CEDB recalls that Article 14(3)(a) DR establishes that a second offence is punished with one match played behind closed doors and a fine of €50,000 for a second offence of the association in relation to the racist behaviour of its supporters.
52. In the present case, the CEDB notes as an aggravating circumstance that the association’s supporters made monkey chants in the direction of English players on two separate occasions during the match, which even prompted the referee of the match to activate step one of the three-step protocol of Annex C of the SSR. Even though the supporters in the stadium were addressed via an announcement over the PA system and were requested to immediately stop such racist behaviour, the racist incidents continued. Even though it is true that each incident assessed by itself was only of a low intensity and magnitude, the fact that such incidents occurred continuously during the first half, triggering further discussions between the referee, the UEFA match delegate and the 4th official as to whether the second step of the three-step protocol should be activated, leading to a further delay of the match, is considered as an aggravating circumstance. Furthermore, it is despicable and unacceptable that, during such delay, some supporters of the association made Nazi salutes.
53. In view of the above, the CEDB would have been inclined to go beyond the standard sanction for such offence, and to impose a sanction harsher than to order the association to play one match behind closed doors. However, in application of Article 23(1) and (3) DR, the CEDB also takes into account some mitigating circumstances.
54. In particular, the CEDB agrees with the argument of the association that these disgraceful acts have only been committed by a small group of people. In this regard, the CEDB notes that the reports vary with regard to the exact number of people who committed the racist 17 | Page
acts, with the UEFA match delegate describing “half a dozen supporters”, the referee speaking about “a few spectators”, and the FARE observer mentioning that “several dozen Bulgaria national team supporters”. Also, from the photographic evidence at hand, only a small number of the association’s supporters can be identified, who were ejected from stadium before the end of the first half of the match, which brought the racist incidents to a halt.
55. Likewise, the CEDB recalls that while the association has one previous record of racist behaviour within the previous three years, the association was previously not sanctioned for racist chants or gestures against players, but for a relatively small banner which is featured in the FARE manual1. Obviously, such circumstance was already taken into account by the CEDB in the relevant decision of 18 July 2019, by means of which the association was sanctioned with a partial stadium closure of 5,000 seats, but needs to be recalled when determining that the present violation of Article 14(2) DR was the association’s first of such magnitude and severity.
56. Considering the abovementioned aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the CEDB deems that the standard sanction contemplated in Article 14(3)(a) DR is not sufficient in the case at hand, given the severity and multiplicity of the racist incidents that occurred during the match. Consequently, the CEDB decides to order the association to play its next two UEFA competition matches that will be played by its A representative team as host association behind closed doors, the second of which being suspended during a probationary period of two years as from the date of the present decision, for the racist behaviour of its supporters.
57. Likewise, in application of Article 14(6) DR, the CEDB further decides to order the Bulgarian Football Union to implement the following directive in the two abovementioned UEFA competition matches which the association will play as the host association: to display a banner with the wording “NO TO RACISM”, with the UEFA logo on it.
58. Furthermore, recalling that in addition to the racist behaviour of the association’s supporters, the throwing of an object by a supporter of the association also occurred during the match. Against this background, the CEDB decides to fine the association €75,000 in consideration of the two abovementioned offences.
59. The CEDB strongly urges the association to increase its efforts with regard to its fight against racism, and to take a strong stand against supporters who want to abuse the platform of the UEFA competitions to display racist and discriminatory messages to the public.
60. Regarding the disturbance during the national anthem of England, the CEDB takes into account the seriousness of the offence committed as well as the fact that the association has never been punished for such offence during the previous two years (cf. Article 25(1)(c) DR). Consequently, the CEDB deems a fine of €10,000 to be adequate for the violation of Article 16(2)(g) DR by the association’s supporters.
1 Monitoring discriminatory signs and symbols in European football, Version 5, June 2016. 18 | Page
61. Regarding the replays on the giant screen, the CEDB recalls that the association has not been punished for the same offence in the past three years (cf. Article 25(1)(d) DR). In view of the clean previous record of the association, considering that the offence was indeed of a low severity, the CEDB deems it adequate to warn the association for the violation of Article 42 SSR.
62. Consequently, the CEDB
decides
1. To order the Bulgarian Football Union to play behind closed doors the next two (2) matches that will be played by its A representative team as host association in a UEFA competition, the second of which being suspended during a probationary period of two (2) years as from the date of the present decision, for the racist behaviour of its supporters. 2. To order the Bulgarian Football Union to implement the following directive in the next two (2) UEFA competition matches which the association will play as the host association: to display a banner with the wording “NO TO RACISM”, with the UEFA logo on it. 3. To fine the Bulgarian Football Union €75,000 for the racist behaviour of its supporters and the throwing of objects. 4. To fine the Bulgarian Football Union €10,000 for causing a disturbance during a national anthem. 5. The above fines in the total amount of €85,000 must be paid into the bank account indicated below within 90 days of communication of this decision. 6. To warn the Bulgarian Football Union for the replays on giant screen.
Thomas Partl Chairman
Bank details Union Bank of Switzerland CH-3001 Acc. n° 235-90 186’444.6 Bank code 235 Swift: UBS WCH ZH 80A IBAN CH30 00235235901864446 Detail address of UBS AG (Union Bank of Switzerland) - CH – 3001 BERNE VAT Number in Switzerland : CHE-116.317.087 Fiscal number in Switzerland / canton de Vaud : 21 652 19 | Page
Advice as to rights of appeal
This decision is open to appeal (Article 60 DR).
A declaration of the intention to appeal against a decision by the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body must be lodged with the UEFA administration, in writing, for the attention of the Appeals Body, within three days of notification of the relevant decision with grounds (Article 60 (2) DR).
Within five days of the expiry of the time limit for the declaration of the intention to appeal, the appellant must file, in writing, the grounds for appeal, which must contain a legal request, an account of the facts, evidence, a list of the witnesses proposed (with a brief summary of their expected testimony) and the appellant’s conclusions (in particular on whether to conduct the appeal proceedings orally or in writing) (Article 60 (3) DR).
The appeal fee is €1,000, payable on submission of the grounds for appeal at the latest (Article 60 (4) DR).
Publication notice
Decisions of the UEFA disciplinary bodies are published on the UEFA website in accordance with Article 52(5) DR. A request to publish an anonymised version of the decision shall be submitted to the UEFA administration within seven days of notification of the decision with grounds.