Read part 1 first
Merits of the Case
A. UEFA´s competence.
10. Pursuant to Article 52 of the UEFA Statutes, as well as Article 23 of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations (DR), the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body is competent to deal with the case.
11. In light of the above, the UEFA Statutes, rules and regulations, in particular the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations are applicable to these proceedings.
B. The sectarian behaviour
a) Applicable legal framework and general remarks
According to Article 8 DR, an 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 and any other person exercising a function on behalf of the association concerned, even if the association concerned can prove the absence of any fault or negligence.
According to Article 14 (1) DR, any 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.
According to Article 14 (2) DR, if one or more of an association’s supporters engage in the behaviour described above, the association responsible is punished with a minimum of a partial stadium closure.
According to Article 38 DR, facts contained in official UEFA reports are presumed to be accurate. Proof of their inaccuracy may, however, be provided.
b) The responsibility of the association
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 (i.e. strict liability).
The fight against racism is a high priority for UEFA. UEFA has a policy of zero tolerance towards racism and discrimination on the pitch and in the stands. Any racist behaviour is considered a serious offence under the DR and shall be punished with regard to the circumstances and the relevant association’s previous record with the utmost severe sanctions.
.
Furthermore, the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body wishes to emphasize that FARE is a relevant partner of UEFA in the fight against racism which provides valuable information and evidence on incidents occurred in UEFA competition matches . The presence of the observer has been confirmed by the UEFA delegate in his report (Article 38 UEFA DR).
Having the above in mind and according to the information provided by FARE, four different sectarian chants took place during the match according to the report and the video footage sent by the FARE observer at the game.
The club contests the fact that some of these chants took place in the exact manner as reported by the FARE observers as well as highlights that the observer exaggerated the facts.
The Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body after having evaluated the video footage, the report of the FARE observer and the arguments of the Respondent is comfortable satisfied that during the above mentioned match sectarian chants took place.
Regarding the chant “No Pope of Rome”, this UEFA disciplinary body asserts that the chant is known as a loyalist song that wishes for a world without Catholicism. The song refers to Bridgton Cross which is traditionally considered to be Protestant area of Glasgow. In this regard, the message linked to this song is obviously sectarian.
The club does not contest the fact that this chant was given by its supporters which is clearly portrayed by the video footage at hand. The Respondent merely addresses to the low number of supporters singing this song during the match, which is obviously not enough to contest the certainty that the chant took place.
Consequently, the club is already liable for the sectarian behavior of its supporters in relation to this song in accordance with Article 14 DR.
Regarding the second chant, “Why don’t you go home”, this song is sung by some Ulster loyalists in Northern Ireland and Scotland and is normally directed at Catholics and, in
Scotland, Irish people, those of Irish descent or those with perceived affiliations to Ireland.
The club does not contests that its supporters sang this song, but r efers that the part relating to “famine´s over” which is indeed the offensive part of the song, is not audible and therefore not sectarian.
This UEFA disciplinary body understands that even accepting that the part referring to “famine´s over” is not audible, it is the song itself which is sectarian as it is commonly accepted by the Northern Irish people and, obviously, by the club´s supporters.
Consequently, the club is also here liable for the sectarian behavior of its supporters for the above behavior in accordance with Article 14 DR.
Regarding the third incident concerning the song “If you hate the 19th Century Terrorist bastards clap your hands”, the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body complies with the assertions of the club insofar this is not audible. Even accepting that the context in which this song has been given could lead to a reasonable and objective observer to conclude that indeed the song chanted by the supporters was the one named above, the elements at hand do not provide sufficient evidence to reach the standard of proof of comfortable satisfaction. It is so mainly because the tune of this song is common to other chants in football and in sport worldwide which are also located in different contexts and with a different wording.
Consequently, the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body is not comfortably satisfied at this stage of the proceedings and with the evidence at hand that the club´s supporters sang this song with the wording “if you hate the 19th Century Terrorist bastards clap your hands”. It could have been, for instance “if you are a Linfield supporter clap your hands”. Thus, the sectarian nature of the chant has not been sufficiently proven by the video footage provided by FARE.
Finally, the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body refers here to the song “Billy Boys” chanted by the club supporters. “Billy Boys” is a loyalist song from Glasgow, sung to the tune of "Marching Through Georgia." It originated in the 1930s as the signature song of one of the Glasgow razor gangs led by Billy Fullerton and later became viewed to reflect the long running sectarian divide in the city. In April 2014, the Irish Football Association (IFA) introduced punishments for "any ... song or chant that is undeniably sectarian or offensive". Linfield advised their supporters that this included all variations of Billy Boys, including the Marching Through Georgia tune – this also confirmed by the club in the course of these proceedings.
Linfield FC admits that its supporters sung the “Billy Boys” chant during the match but insists on the fact that the there are a number of non sectarian versions, that the number of its supporters singing this song was extremely low, 1-2, and that it condemns any chant based on “Billy Boys” chanted by its supporters.
The Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body cannot comply with the club arguments. First, the number of supporters singing this song is irrelevant in the light of Article 14 DR “any person under the scope of Article 3”. Second, here as well, the message linked to this song is obviously sectarian which contravenes the above provision. Finally, the fact that the club condemns any version of the “Billy Boys” song implies that the club accepts the negative nature of this song. It cannot pretend to condemn any version of the “Billy Boys” song, but simultaneously not be liable for its supporters sectarian attitude.
Consequently, the club is also here liable for the sectarian behavior of its supporters in accordance with Article 14 DR.
The Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body, after having evaluated the reports provided by the UEFA delegate and FARE observer concerning the chants, concludes that the conduct perpetrated by the Linfield FC supporters violated Article 14 DR and must be punished accordingly.
IV.
The determination of the appropriate disciplinary measure
As regards to the racist behaviour, the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body draws the attention to the fact that after the enforcement of the Disciplinary Regulations Edition 2013, confirmed again in the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations Edition 2014, the fight against racist behaviour has entered into a new stage. It has resulted in more severe sanctions towards racist behaviours. As such, if one or more of a member association or club’s supporters engage in the behaviour described in Article 14 (1), the member association or club responsible is punished with a minimum of a partial stad ium closure (Article 14 (2) DR).
So now we know how the ground lies, and what is NOT acceptable.
There can be no excuses.
Merits of the Case
A. UEFA´s competence.
10. Pursuant to Article 52 of the UEFA Statutes, as well as Article 23 of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations (DR), the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body is competent to deal with the case.
11. In light of the above, the UEFA Statutes, rules and regulations, in particular the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations are applicable to these proceedings.
B. The sectarian behaviour
a) Applicable legal framework and general remarks
According to Article 8 DR, an 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 and any other person exercising a function on behalf of the association concerned, even if the association concerned can prove the absence of any fault or negligence.
According to Article 14 (1) DR, any 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.
According to Article 14 (2) DR, if one or more of an association’s supporters engage in the behaviour described above, the association responsible is punished with a minimum of a partial stadium closure.
According to Article 38 DR, facts contained in official UEFA reports are presumed to be accurate. Proof of their inaccuracy may, however, be provided.
b) The responsibility of the association
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 (i.e. strict liability).
The fight against racism is a high priority for UEFA. UEFA has a policy of zero tolerance towards racism and discrimination on the pitch and in the stands. Any racist behaviour is considered a serious offence under the DR and shall be punished with regard to the circumstances and the relevant association’s previous record with the utmost severe sanctions.
.
Furthermore, the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body wishes to emphasize that FARE is a relevant partner of UEFA in the fight against racism which provides valuable information and evidence on incidents occurred in UEFA competition matches . The presence of the observer has been confirmed by the UEFA delegate in his report (Article 38 UEFA DR).
Having the above in mind and according to the information provided by FARE, four different sectarian chants took place during the match according to the report and the video footage sent by the FARE observer at the game.
The club contests the fact that some of these chants took place in the exact manner as reported by the FARE observers as well as highlights that the observer exaggerated the facts.
The Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body after having evaluated the video footage, the report of the FARE observer and the arguments of the Respondent is comfortable satisfied that during the above mentioned match sectarian chants took place.
Regarding the chant “No Pope of Rome”, this UEFA disciplinary body asserts that the chant is known as a loyalist song that wishes for a world without Catholicism. The song refers to Bridgton Cross which is traditionally considered to be Protestant area of Glasgow. In this regard, the message linked to this song is obviously sectarian.
The club does not contest the fact that this chant was given by its supporters which is clearly portrayed by the video footage at hand. The Respondent merely addresses to the low number of supporters singing this song during the match, which is obviously not enough to contest the certainty that the chant took place.
Consequently, the club is already liable for the sectarian behavior of its supporters in relation to this song in accordance with Article 14 DR.
Regarding the second chant, “Why don’t you go home”, this song is sung by some Ulster loyalists in Northern Ireland and Scotland and is normally directed at Catholics and, in
Scotland, Irish people, those of Irish descent or those with perceived affiliations to Ireland.
The club does not contests that its supporters sang this song, but r efers that the part relating to “famine´s over” which is indeed the offensive part of the song, is not audible and therefore not sectarian.
This UEFA disciplinary body understands that even accepting that the part referring to “famine´s over” is not audible, it is the song itself which is sectarian as it is commonly accepted by the Northern Irish people and, obviously, by the club´s supporters.
Consequently, the club is also here liable for the sectarian behavior of its supporters for the above behavior in accordance with Article 14 DR.
Regarding the third incident concerning the song “If you hate the 19th Century Terrorist bastards clap your hands”, the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body complies with the assertions of the club insofar this is not audible. Even accepting that the context in which this song has been given could lead to a reasonable and objective observer to conclude that indeed the song chanted by the supporters was the one named above, the elements at hand do not provide sufficient evidence to reach the standard of proof of comfortable satisfaction. It is so mainly because the tune of this song is common to other chants in football and in sport worldwide which are also located in different contexts and with a different wording.
Consequently, the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body is not comfortably satisfied at this stage of the proceedings and with the evidence at hand that the club´s supporters sang this song with the wording “if you hate the 19th Century Terrorist bastards clap your hands”. It could have been, for instance “if you are a Linfield supporter clap your hands”. Thus, the sectarian nature of the chant has not been sufficiently proven by the video footage provided by FARE.
Finally, the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body refers here to the song “Billy Boys” chanted by the club supporters. “Billy Boys” is a loyalist song from Glasgow, sung to the tune of "Marching Through Georgia." It originated in the 1930s as the signature song of one of the Glasgow razor gangs led by Billy Fullerton and later became viewed to reflect the long running sectarian divide in the city. In April 2014, the Irish Football Association (IFA) introduced punishments for "any ... song or chant that is undeniably sectarian or offensive". Linfield advised their supporters that this included all variations of Billy Boys, including the Marching Through Georgia tune – this also confirmed by the club in the course of these proceedings.
Linfield FC admits that its supporters sung the “Billy Boys” chant during the match but insists on the fact that the there are a number of non sectarian versions, that the number of its supporters singing this song was extremely low, 1-2, and that it condemns any chant based on “Billy Boys” chanted by its supporters.
The Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body cannot comply with the club arguments. First, the number of supporters singing this song is irrelevant in the light of Article 14 DR “any person under the scope of Article 3”. Second, here as well, the message linked to this song is obviously sectarian which contravenes the above provision. Finally, the fact that the club condemns any version of the “Billy Boys” song implies that the club accepts the negative nature of this song. It cannot pretend to condemn any version of the “Billy Boys” song, but simultaneously not be liable for its supporters sectarian attitude.
Consequently, the club is also here liable for the sectarian behavior of its supporters in accordance with Article 14 DR.
The Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body, after having evaluated the reports provided by the UEFA delegate and FARE observer concerning the chants, concludes that the conduct perpetrated by the Linfield FC supporters violated Article 14 DR and must be punished accordingly.
IV.
The determination of the appropriate disciplinary measure
As regards to the racist behaviour, the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body draws the attention to the fact that after the enforcement of the Disciplinary Regulations Edition 2013, confirmed again in the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations Edition 2014, the fight against racist behaviour has entered into a new stage. It has resulted in more severe sanctions towards racist behaviours. As such, if one or more of a member association or club’s supporters engage in the behaviour described in Article 14 (1), the member association or club responsible is punished with a minimum of a partial stad ium closure (Article 14 (2) DR).
So now we know how the ground lies, and what is NOT acceptable.
There can be no excuses.
