Court of Arbitration for Sport overturns penalties for Neto and Miguel Braga – Sporting

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (TAD) rescinded the penalties applied by the FPF Disciplinary Board, in September 2020, to Neto (one match suspension and fine of €2,550) and Miguel Braga (suspension of 45 days and fine of €4,590). . However, TAD imposed a fine of €20,400 on Sporting.

In the case, remember, after the Sp.Braga-Sporting match, on February 2, 2020, which ended with the Lions defeating 1-0, criticizing the refereeing Jorge Souza. On the top Neto considered Sporting to be “very conditional” by a judge at Porto. “It’s very easy to beat Sporting, disrespect!” , strengthen the heart of the defense. In turn, in an opinion piece published in the Sporting Journal, Miguel Braga recalled another case involving Alvalade Club and Jorge Souza, then in Real-Sporting B. “Mr. Souza could have learned to control his emotions in Sporting CP games. But no, the guy can’t stand that,” stressed the communications director. On the other hand, Sporting was penalized once the same text was published on the club’s official platforms.

Related

On the other hand, the CTS ruled that Neto – who did not comply with the aforementioned penalty because Sporting mediated an injunction stopping the sentence – “did not personalize the criticism” in Jorge Souza, so the statements cannot be classified as insulting, defamatory or impolite. , which makes the application of the offense set forth in Article 158 of Resolution RD2019 not possible.

“It is not possible to follow the identical logic in the case of the sporting claimant Sporting Clube de Portugal – Futebol, SAD: unlike the previous case, there is an appropriation of the criticism directed, which is not limited to the concrete sporting performance, which has general considerations a place in the competence for the future performance of the role Verdict,” they confirm.

In the case of Miguel Braga, it was considered that the person in charge of the liaison could not be considered a leader”, which “imposes its inapplicability in the case of a disciplinary offense”.