Supreme does not forgive Benfica and confirms sentence on messages

0
5


€ 22,950 fine for offensive content on Twitter account reserved for journalists

The Supreme Administrative Court (STA) confirmed the € 22,950 fine imposed on Benfica for offensive content of messages that were broadcast on an account of the ‘red’ club of the social network Twitter reserved for journalists.

In the decision, dated 10 September and to which Lusa had access today, STA upheld the appeal of the Portuguese Football Federation (FPF) and revoked the judgment of the Central Administrative Court South, which confirmed the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal for Sport , who had annulled the fine imposed on Benfica on March 12, 2019.

At issue are comments about Manuel Oliveira’s refereeing in the game Vitória de Setúbal – FC Porto, in the 2018/2019 season, which the Porto team won 2-0, reproduced in a sports newspaper.

“Why did you go to appoint a referee who receives invitations to the dragons’ box? So that you can see Felipe Vale-Tudo’s return in force. So that absences that all see only the referee don’t see,” says one of the tweets posted on the account SL Benfica Press.

In another tweet, more criticism was made of the refereeing: “So that clean goals can be canceled. Because the Blue Velvet League, to endure, lost its shame and tonight we witnessed a scam with high sponsorship”.

The advising judges were not in any doubt that the messages broadcast by Benfica “are damaging to the referee’s reputation”, namely when it is stated that he “committed refereeing errors with the intention of benefiting Futebol Clube do Porto”.

“In fact, in stating that Manuel Oliveira did not arbitrate that match according to the criteria of exemption, objectivity and impartiality to which he is attached, the text implies that it was corrupted by the rival club, thus deliberately calling into question his good name and reputation “, reads in the judgment.

STA therefore concluded that the disciplinary sanction was well applied by the FPF Disciplinary Board, and should therefore remain, against what was decided by the authorities.



LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here