Crystal Palace, Nottingham Forrest, Olympic Lyonnais: Unfair CAS decisions?
CAS dismissed an appeal by Crystal Palace for the same misconduct that was accepted by Olympic Lyon. Questions that need answers.
It all started with the decision of the French disciplinary body to punish Olympic Lyonnais for their financial misconduct with a relegation to Ligue 2, while still being able to compete in 2025/2026 Europa League season. The Eagles of Crystal Palace faced a similar penalty for breaching multi-ownership rules (John Textor owned stakes in both clubs) only instead of being demoted to the Championship, they lost their qualification to play at the Europa League and were told to compete at the Europa Conference League instead.
Different courses for the appeals
As expected, both clubs filed appeals at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and here is where it gets interesting. While the original ruling for Olympic Lyonnais was overturned and they were allowed to play for Ligue 1, the one for the Eagles was not. Reading the decisions does raise a few questions on the reasoning of their justification. And it does indicate that the French club was treated differently than the English one. Let’s discuss about that reasoning:
1) Deadlines taken or not taken under consideration
First of all, there is the debate on why was Olympic Lyonnais given 8 months to rectify their financial misconduct instead of an immediate punishment. And then, when the original decision for relegation mentioned that during these 8 months, not enough actions were taken to remedy the deficit adequately, why did CAS accept the opposite when it is clear that the debt will keep increasing instead of decreasing?
For Crystal Palace the boards were rigid. The deadline for submitting the multi-ownership information was on March 1 2025. John Textor sold his share of the Eagles in June, so both boards said that the dates are not flexible.
2) Decisive influence on the day of the assessment
The regulation says that two clubs owned or managed by the same person or legal entity cannot play at the same European competition. When the Eagles filed their appeal, they went for a double claiming that they should take Nottingham Forrest’s place at the Europa League since the Garibaldis have the same ownership as Olympiacos FC of Greece. Since the Greek club qualified for the league phase of the Champions League, that argument was nullified.
CAS anchored their decision on the fact that when the relevant ruling body convened to make the initial ruling, Eagle Football Group had «decisive influence» on both clubs. In the case of Lyon, looking at it typically, this stands true, given that John Textor was the president and holding the majority of the shares with 77%. Even though he stepped down from being president of the club and replaced by Michelle Kang, he still holds the stake.
However, this may not be true for Crystal Palace. For the Eagles, the stake was only 43% and not the majority. Therefore, typically, the remaining 57% could overturn any decisions that he made. The claim was that the president of the club, Steve Parish along with Josh Harris and David Blitzer, were the ones making the calls. CAS did not accept this claim to be true.
3) A ruse from Textor’s side
While it is not clearly stated in the written ruling, rumor has it, that the sale of the Crystal Palace shares to Woody Johnson, owner of the New York Jets, was only typical and not real. Meaning that, from their point of view, the new shareholder would not get involved in the actual day-to-day operations of the club, but would leave it to Textor as an appointee representative.
However, this is also clearly the case with Evangelos Marinakis and his shares at Nottingham Forrest. While in April he announced the dilution of his control over the club, in clear preparation to allow both teams that he owns to participate at the Champions League, he did so by placing them in a blind trust. There is no doubt to anyone’s mind, that he is still the one calling the shots for the Garibaldis even though co-owner Sokratis Kominakis, took over the position of the president and appears to have control of all decisions.
Why was Lyon treated differently
While there are plenty of examples, let’s discuss about two cases that happened at the same time as the one of Olympic Lyonnais. Everton and Nottingham Forrest where both investigated for breaking the rules of sustainability and profit. In other words, financial misconduct. In both cases, the initial punishment of point reductions from the Premier League, was announced and imposed immediately upon the completion of the investigation. Both clubs filed appeals, submitted new information and got their sentences mitigated.
As we discussed above, Lyon were given 8 months to correct their financial misconduct. At the end, they also got away and did not get punished while they still owe an undetermined number of millions of Euros. It is not an understatement to say that their vindication actually announced to the world that it is OK to break the rules. This is the argument that people use to support the claim that the French club was indeed treated differently.
The big picture vs the details
Arguably, it could be said that since there are three different ruling bodies that issued the first punishments, it’s reasonable to assume that they do not see things the same way. We have the FA in the UK, UEFA and the French DNCG. It could also be that there are different laws in effect. However, CAS is a universal constant and should consider all cases in the same manner. If we also take under consideration that FIFA wants to establish a status quo that is independent from any say from the local sovereignties, then we have plenty of questions that need answers.
And it is imperative that they get a response and that this response is satisfactory. Apart from all the high-level scheming and rule bending that we see everywhere, there’s the common people to think about. Those that cheer for their favorite clubs at the stadiums every week. Those that love the sport for the sport. Those that invest their money when they open accounts via agent to place bets. If they thing that the whole structure is corrupt, why would they continue to support football?
Share:
More Posts
