The case involves an appeal by Feyenoord Rotterdam N.V. against UEFA’s sanctions for an alleged racist incident during a UEFA Europa League match against AS Roma in 2015. An inflatable banana was thrown onto the pitch, which UEFA interpreted as a racist act directed at AS Roma player Gervinho. UEFA’s Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body (CEDB) found Feyenoord in violation of Article 14.1 of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations (DR), which prohibits insults to human dignity based on race or ethnicity. As this was deemed a second violation, Feyenoord was fined €50,000 and ordered to play its next UEFA match behind closed doors. Feyenoord appealed to the UEFA Appeals Body, which upheld the decision, prompting the club to take the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS Panel examined several legal issues, including the interpretation of Article 14.1 DR, which aims to prevent discriminatory behavior. The Panel emphasized that for a violation to occur, there must be both an insult to human dignity and a discriminatory basis. It upheld the presumptive validity of UEFA’s official reports under Article 38 DR, shifting the burden of proof to Feyenoord to disprove the allegations. The Panel also established an objective test for determining violations: if a reasonable observer would perceive the act as racist, it constitutes a breach of Article 14.1 DR. This standard ensures uniform application of anti-racism rules, avoiding subjective interpretations.
Feyenoord argued that the inflatable banana was not racist but part of a fan tradition to create a positive atmosphere. They highlighted the thrower’s identity as a young black individual, suggesting no racist intent, and criticized UEFA’s reliance on media reports and the referee’s subjective assessment. UEFA maintained that the act was inherently racist under Article 14 DR, regardless of intent, and emphasized the importance of its anti-racism policy. The Panel found that the referee’s report, corroborated by video evidence and testimony, supported UEFA’s conclusion. It dismissed Feyenoord’s contextual arguments, noting the aggressive match atmosphere and the banana’s symbolic racism when directed at a black player.
Regarding sanctions, the Panel noted that Article 17.3 DR sets standard measures for violations, adjustable only under exceptional circumstances. While acknowledging the possibility of unintentional racism, the Panel upheld the €50,000 fine but suspended the closed-door match sanction, imposing a three-year probationary period. If no further violations occurred, the sanction would not be enforced. The Panel stressed the importance of combating racism in football, reinforcing clubs’ responsibility for their supporters’ behavior.
Ultimately, the CAS Panel partially upheld Feyenoord’s appeal, suspending the closed-door match sanction but affirming the fine. The decision underscored UEFA’s commitment to uniform anti-racism standards and the objective assessment of racist incidents in sports. It balanced deterrence with fairness, providing Feyenoord an opportunity to demonstrate improved conduct while maintaining strict consequences for future violations. The ruling aligns with broader efforts to uphold anti-racism principles in football.