The case involves an appeal by Guangzhou Evergrande Taobao FC against sanctions imposed by the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) for discriminatory conduct by its spectators during an AFC Champions League match on April 25, 2017. The incident centered on a banner displayed in the away section of the stadium, containing language deemed discriminatory and politically charged, targeting Hong Kong and its historical ties to Britain. The banner's message, translated as "Annihilate British Dogs, Exterminate Hong Kong Independence Poison," was found to violate Articles 58.1 and 65.1 of the AFC Disciplinary and Ethics Code (AFC Code). Article 58.1 prohibits discriminatory conduct, defined as actions or words that offend the dignity of individuals or groups based on factors such as political opinion or national origin. The AFC panel concluded that the banner's language was contemptuous, denigratory, and discriminatory toward people of Hong Kong origin, also reflecting a political opinion.
The AFC Code establishes strict liability for spectator conduct under Article 65, meaning the club is responsible for its supporters' actions regardless of intent or direct culpability. The panel rejected the club's argument that the individuals displaying the banner were not registered fans, emphasizing that strict liability applies. The club's efforts to guide supporters were noted but deemed irrelevant to liability. The panel distinguished between the lex specialis (Article 58, addressing discriminatory conduct specifically) and the lex generalis (Article 65, covering general spectator misconduct). Since discriminatory conduct is considered more severe, the sanction was based on Article 58. The AFC Code mandates that concurrent infringements be penalized under the most serious provision, with possible increases based on aggravating factors. Given the gravity of discriminatory behavior and the club's three prior spectator incidents in five years, the panel upheld the original sanctions: a two-match spectator ban (suspended for two years) and a fine of USD 22,500.
Guangzhou Evergrande Taobao FC appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the sanctions were excessive and disproportionate. The club cited mitigating factors such as the banner's short display time, lack of game disruption, immediate fan apology, and inadequate security measures by the host team, Eastern SC. The club also contested the application of Article 58, arguing that Article 65, as the lex specialis, should have been applied instead. The CAS Panel examined the case, confirming its jurisdiction and the admissibility of the appeal. It applied the AFC November 2017 Code under the principle of lex mitior, which favors the accused if regulatory changes occur before a final judgment.
The Panel upheld the finding that the banner violated Article 58.1, emphasizing its discriminatory nature and the context of the match in Hong Kong. It rejected the club's argument that Article 65 should take precedence, ruling that Article 58, as the lex specialis, was correctly applied. The Panel also upheld the fine, noting it was the minimum prescribed under Article 58.3, with a modest increase justified by the club's history of spectator misconduct. However, the Panel set aside the two-match spectator ban, as it was no longer a statutory minimum under the updated AFC Code.
The case underscores the AFC's strict stance against discriminatory conduct and the principle of strict liability for clubs regarding their supporters' actions. It also highlights the CAS's role in ensuring proportionality and fairness in disciplinary sanctions, balancing accountability with contextual factors. The decision reaffirms the importance of anti-discrimination policies in football and the need for clubs to manage supporter behavior effectively.