The FA v Silva and Mitrovic
Forum: Appeal Board
Decision date:
Were the 2-match suspensions against Messrs Silva and Mitrovic so unduly lenient as to be unreasonable? How should a Regulatory Commission approach sanction?
Following the FA Cup Quarter Final 2023 (Manchester United v Fulham), Marco da Silva (Fulham Manager) and Aleksandar Mitrovic (Fulham Striker), were charged with various acts of abusive, insulting and improper conduct against the match officials. The acts included throwing a water bottle at an assistant referee and elbowing the match referee. The FA's Regulatory Commission (the "RC") found the charges against Silva and Mitrovic proven and sanctioned them with match suspensions and fines. Silva was given a 2-match suspension. As to Mitrovic, the RC found that the standard punishment for his sending off was insufficient and suspended Mitrovic for a further 3 matches (a total of 6 matches including the usual 3 matches for a red card). The RC also issued Mitrovic with a further 2-match suspension for his conduct after receiving a red card.
The FA appealed Silva's 2-match suspension and Mitrovic's post-dismissal 2-match suspension on the basis that they were so unduly lenient as to be unreasonable, per The FA, Disciplinary Regulations, Pt E, Fast Track 7, reg 5.3. Applying the Principles of The FA v Klopp (AB, 11 November 2022) [20], which afford the RC a wide margin of appreciation, the Appeal Board refused to interfere with the RC's sanctions and dismissed the appeal. In doing so, the Appeal Board held that the FA Rules do not require the RC to approach sanction in any prescribed manner. Further, the RC was entitled to consider the totality of the breaches as "different facets of one course of conduct" when determining sanction, rather than assigning a sanction to each individual breach.