The FA v Mikel Arteta

Mr Arteta was charged under Rule E3 following post-match media comments he made in the aftermath of Arsenal’s loss to Newcastle United FC at St James’ Park on 4 November 2023.

In that match, the deciding goal was awarded to Newcastle following a controversial review by the Video Assistant Referee (the VAR), who checked for three potential infringements by Newcastle United over a course of more than four minutes.

Speaking after the match, Mr Arteta described the decision to award the goal as “embarrassing” and “an absolute disgrace”, stating (amongst other things) that “this is nowhere near the level to describe this as the best league in the world” and that he felt “sick to be part of this”. The FA charged him with Misconduct for these comments, alleging that they were insulting towards Match Officials and/or were detrimental to the game and/or brought the game into disrepute.

The Regulatory Commission dismissed the Charge, concluding that Mr Arteta’s words “whether viewed individually or in their totality” did not breach Rule E3 on any of the bases alleged. In particular, the Regulatory Commission accepted that Mr Arteta “was not at any time expressing a view about the behaviour of the Match Officials (or about Premier League match officials generally) or making any implicit criticisms of their performances, integrity or impartiality”. Rather, the focus of his comments was on “the deficient state of the VAR system and processes”, a matter about which he could legitimately express his frustration.

The Regulatory Commission’s decision is significant in that it addresses the extent to which managers may legitimately criticise refereeing decisions and standards without committing Misconduct under Rule E3. It also contains interesting assertions and concessions by The FA in that regard.

In particular, The FA accepted the correctness of the statements of principle made by the Court of Arbitration for Sport in PSG and Neymar v UEFA that “[i]f one wants football to stir emotions, people must also have the freedom – of course within certain limits – to discuss match-deciding decisions, even with emotions riding high” and that it should be possible for those involved in sport to state that decisions are wrong and discuss them controversially.

The Regulatory Commission elaborated on this, finding that “[p]rovided that it is expressed and delivered in a reasonable and appropriate manner”, FA Rule E3 does not prohibit criticism of individual refereeing decisions or of “a system or process by which decisions are made (such as the VAR review process)”.

In this regard, the Regulatory Commission drew a sharp distinction between managerial comments which are directed at or insulting towards Match Officials, for example by implying incompetence on their part, and comments which legitimately address the deficiencies in a decision-making system or process without crossing the line and insulting a particular Match Official.

The Regulatory Commission also addressed the broader significance of ‘’weaknesses in and issues with the VAR process” for managers making post-match media comments. The Regulatory Commission referenced the “high-profile failure” of VAR decision-making in the Tottenham Hotspur v Liverpool match on 30 September 2023, and discussed the fact that the Premier League itself had acknowledged “[t]he need for improvement in the general standard of VAR performance” in a press release.

The Regulatory Commission ultimately accepted: (i) that these were matters of which the reasonable bystander would be aware, such that they should be borne in mind when objectively interpreting comments alleged to constitute Misconduct under Rule E3; and (ii) that the questions of whether particular comments were detrimental to the game or brought it into disrepute should be addressed by reference to the fact that the Premier League had itself acknowledged “systemic weaknesses in the VAR process”.

The Regulatory Commission’s full written decision can be found here.

Ian Mill KC and Rowan Stennett acted for Mr Arteta.