‘TV case’: TAD upholds FC Porto fine over Veríssimo dressing-room footage | OneFootball

The Sports Arbitration Court (TAD) unanimously rejected the appeal filed by FC Porto against the 12,750-euro fine imposed by the Portuguese Football Federation (FPF), upholding the sanction due to the repeated display of controversial incidents in the dressing room of the refereeing team led by Fábio Veríssimo, during half-time of the match against SC Braga, played on 2 November 2025 at the Estádio do Dragão.

The ruling, dated 11 May 2026 and issued in case no. 2/2026, bearing the signature of presiding arbitrator Tiago Serrão, states that “The facts set out in paragraphs E), G) and I) reveal, at the very least, (serious) carelessness/inattention on the part of the Claimant”, a conclusion endorsed by all three arbitrators on the panel.

According to the facts found proven by the TAD, during the interval of the Matchday 10 league game, the television installed in the referees’ dressing room showed, “repeatedly (on loop)”, footage of the goal disallowed for FC Porto in the first half. The situation occurred again at the end of the match and, later, footage was also shown from an under-13 game likewise officiated by Fábio Veríssimo, the main referee of the match.

Despite their attempts, the refereeing team were unable to switch off the television. According to the ruling, “the remote control was not working and, when the power button on the television itself was pressed, the message ‘enter unlock code’ appeared”. It further adds that “the television in question did not have any plug for connection to a socket, having only a cable directly connected to the wall/ceiling”.

Fábio Veríssimo expressed his displeasure to Bertino Miranda, a former referee who is now an adviser and trainer in the refereeing area at FC Porto, telling him “that such conduct was not acceptable”. The facts received “wide coverage in the media”.

In its defence, FC Porto argued that everything resulted from a “manual error in the choice of the locations where the content in question should have been displayed”, admitting, at most, conduct that was “at most negligent”, but never intentional. Rui Jorge Rodrigues, responsible for operating the system, allegedly selected the refereeing team’s dressing room “inadvertently” by making “a mere ‘click’ on a ‘box’”.

Going further, the Dragons club challenged the very validity of the disciplinary rule applied. For FC Porto, Article 118(b) of the Disciplinary Regulations for Competitions Organized by the League would be “a blank sanctioning rule, a sort of ‘catch-all rule’” that violates “the requirement of determinability of punitive rules applied by public entities, imposed by the principles of legality and the rule of law”.

In FC Porto’s view, the conviction was based “on subjective and biased interpretations made of it by third parties unrelated to the club”, without there being any “serious harm to the image and good name of football competitions”. The court rejected all of these arguments.

As for intent, the ruling is categorical: “The sanctioning rule relevant here (…) does not require intent at the level of the subjective element of fault”. Article 118(b) clearly provides that clubs are punished “even on grounds of negligence”, that degree of fault being sufficient.

The TAD went even further by classifying the conduct as “gross or serious negligence”: “Not only did the failure occur more than once, but it concerns the broadcasting of videos which, given their content, obviously could not be shown in the referees’ dressing room, and only a particularly sloppy person would engage in such conduct”.

The ruling cites several rules imposing specific duties, namely Article 19 of the Disciplinary Regulations, which enshrines duties of “loyalty, probity, truth and rectitude”, Article 51 of the Competition Regulations, which requires “courteous and proper conduct”, and Article 35 of the same instrument, which requires clubs to act with “propriety, moderation and respect”. “The duty of civility is, in that framework, pivotal and, together with other duties linked to sporting ethics, was plainly disregarded,” the document reads.

Particularly relevant is the reasoning concerning the damage caused to the image of the competitions. For the TAD, the conduct is harmful “in itself”, even if no actual influence on refereeing is proven.

The court stresses that “the wide media coverage of the facts, combined with the external perception that a club allowed the repeated exposure of the refereeing team to potentially conditioning content, projects outward an image of instrumentalization of the refereeing function, undermining the institutional credibility of the competitions”.

The distinction between fact and perception is central to the decision: “One thing is for the impartiality and independence of refereeing to have actually been affected; another is (…) the external perception of the impartiality and independence of refereeing and the regularity of the competition, regardless of proof of any actual influence on or conditioning of the decisions of the specific referees”.

In addition to upholding the 12,750-euro fine, FC Porto was also ordered to pay 5,105 euros, including VAT, in costs of the arbitration proceedings, an amount covering the arbitrators’ fees and administrative expenses. The decision was unanimous among the three judges on the panel: Tiago Rodrigues Bastos, designated by FC Porto, Pedro Melo, appointed by the FPF, and Tiago Serrão, chosen by the others.

The club can still appeal to the Constitutional Court, but only on constitutional matters, since the merits of the decision cannot be reviewed again.

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