TAD scraps €5,740 fine for Benfica over trouble at the Dragão | OneFootball

The Sports Arbitration Court ruled in favor of Benfica SAD and annulled the €5,740 fine imposed by the Disciplinary Board of the Portuguese Football Federation over the disturbances that took place during the clash with FC Porto at the Estádio do Dragão. The unanimous decision removed responsibility from the Eagles and declared the appeal “fully upheld.”

At issue were the clashes recorded during halftime of the goalless draw between FC Porto and Benfica, played on October 5 last year in the league. Called upon to rule on the sanction, the Sports Arbitration Court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to attribute culpable conduct to the visiting club.

The decision, dated September 18, was taken unanimously by the Arbitral Panel. In addition to annulling the fine, the court ordered that the legal costs of the proceedings be borne in full by the FPF.

The appeal lodged by the Eagles was deemed “fully upheld,” the Arbitral Panel established.

The outcome completely overturns the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Board and places at the center of the case an essential question: how far a club’s responsibility can extend for incidents whose authorship and institutional link were not proven.

The sanction had stemmed from an alleged violation of Article 182 of the League’s Disciplinary Regulations, relating to serious assaults against spectators and other participants. The disturbances involved members of the organized groups No Name Boys and Diabos Vermelhos during halftime of the match.

In the ruling, the TAD removed Benfica’s responsibility, stressing that the team was at the Dragão as the visiting side.

The Lisbon club “did not assume, in that match, the status of promoter of the sporting event, nor did it control access to, presence in, or surveillance of the sports venue,” the arbitrators underlined.

For the court, those duties fell to the home club and the security forces. The status of visitor thus became a decisive factor in defining the obligations that could be required of Benfica SAD.

Another point highlighted by the TAD was the failure to identify the people involved in the clashes. Without that identification, the court found that no link had been established between those involved and Benfica’s sports company.

According to the decision, “none of the people involved in the incidents was identified,” and there was no evidence that they were members, registered supporters, or associates of Benfica SAD.

The absence of that link weakened the basis for the disciplinary punishment. For the Arbitral Panel, it was not enough to associate the disturbances with organized groups in order to automatically hold the club responsible.

Benfica’s compliance with its regulatory duties also weighed in the decision. The club was accompanied by its Security Director and its Supporter Liaison Officer, elements that the TAD considered relevant in assessing the Eagles’ conduct.

In addition, Benfica “was not aware of the disagreement during the course of the match,” the court held.

This assessment dismissed the idea that the club had ignored a situation it was aware of or failed to act in response to the incidents. On the contrary, the decision points to compliance with the obligations required of it in that context.

The Arbitral Panel also rejected the idea that liability could rest on presumptions. Sanctioning Benfica without concrete proof of culpable conduct would mean shifting onto the club the obligation to prove negative facts.

Such a solution would impose on Benfica SAD a “diabolical burden of proof,” the TAD held.

The court added that such a requirement would clash with the principle of the presumption of innocence. The lack of concrete evidence therefore could not be replaced by an automatic inference of liability.

In the appeal, Benfica SAD had argued precisely that it could not be held liable for acts committed by unidentified persons whose link to the club had never been demonstrated. The Eagles also argued that there was no evidence of any failure in duties of oversight or prevention that could be attributed to them.

The FPF Disciplinary Board had considered that the incidents justified the punishment provided for in the Disciplinary Regulations. The TAD fully reversed that interpretation: the €5,740 fine is annulled and the Portuguese Football Federation will have to bear the legal costs of the proceedings.

This article was translated into English by Artificial Intelligence. You can read the original version in 🇵🇹 here.