Insulting referees is a right, rules European court
Sign up now: Get the biggest sports news in your inbox
Referees participating in high‑ranking football competitions are indeed subject to a degree of public exposure, said the court.
PHOTO: REUTERS
- The European Court of Human Rights ruled that insulting football referees is protected by freedom of speech, but accusing them of corruption or criminal behaviour is not allowed.
- The court rejected claims of corruption without solid evidence, calling such accusations "conspiracy theories" and upheld Portuguese courts' punishments in these cases.
- However, the court supported criticising referees’ performance using value judgments, ruling that such remarks are acceptable fan expressions and ordered repayment of fines for violating free speech rights.
AI generated
STRASBOURG, France - Criticising and insulting football referees is a right protected by freedom of speech, but suggesting officials are corrupt or criminal goes too far, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on July 7.
The court, based in Strasbourg, was ruling on a series of cases brought by Porto football club and two of its former officials.
The cases concerned a series of punishments imposed by the Portuguese football authorities and courts for attacks made by media outlets owned by Porto, calling into question named referees and the refereeing system as a whole, following matches involving, in particular, bitter rival Benfica.
The European Court rejected the Porto position in the majority of cases which involved “accusations of corruption and match manipulation”.
“Mere refereeing errors or irregularities, even if they are numerous or repeated over time, do not constitute, on their own, sufficient evidence of the existence of the scheme alleged by the applicants,” said the judgment.
“Therefore, such speculative connections or assumptions were made by the applicants and conveyed to the wider public without a minimal factual basis.”
It pointed out that Portuguese courts had refered to “conspiracy theories”.
However, the court found in favour of club newsletter Dragoes Diario, which was punished for a 2019 article published after Benfica won 4-1 at Feirense.
The piece said that a named official “has a problem with impartiality” and “had a career as a referee full of untenable decisions” before becoming a VAR official and “following the same shameful path”.
The court decided this was acceptable fan talk.
“Those statements were value judgments about a referee’s performance,” it wrote. “Such critical remarks are commonly made in the context of football, where incidents during a match often give rise to varying and contested interpretations and opinions, often influenced by club affiliations.”
The court added that abuse came with a referee’s job.
“Referees participating in high‑ranking football competitions are indeed subject to a degree of public exposure,” it wrote. “When referees are acting in this capacity, they may be subject to wider limits of acceptable criticism than ordinary citizens.”
It ruled that the Portuguese punishments for these remarks violated Article 10 (on freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and ordered the Portuguese authorities to repay a €15,300 (S$22,600) fine as damages and to cover costs
The ECHR is an international court responsible for adjudicating disputes relating to violations of the European Convention on Human Rights in the 46 signatory states. AFP
