Skip to main content

Difficult for Liverpool to get redress for VAR fiasco

The release of the audio exchanges between officials at Saturday's game between Spurs and Liverpool has fanned the flames of the controversy about the offside decision.   They reveal an unacceptable level of incompetence and casual decision-making.

Dan Chapman, partner and head of sport and employment at Leathes Prior, said it was difficult to see what legal claims Liverpool had.  He told The Athletic: “What Liverpool are probably going to do, perhaps with the support of most clubs, is say, ‘This is no longer acceptable’ and, ‘There needs to be radical changes’. I can’t realistically see there is a legal route. But you don’t need a strong case sometimes, you need an arguable case and then you use it to bring about change.

“I can’t see any circumstances where it’s going to result in any changes being made to the fixture because you can’t demonstrate that the game would have been different had that goal counted.”

Hannah Kent, a senior associate in the dispute resolution team at Onside Law, agreed any legal challenge is unlikely to succeed.

She said: “On-field decisions don’t tend to be interfered with after the event. There are very limited exceptions — if there’s been evidence of corruption, for example.

“Their course of action would be to get the official sanctioned or taken off their matches. If Liverpool tried to get the match replayed, which is extremely unlikely and they haven’t called for this, then all sorts of other clubs would try to do the same thing.”

Dev Kumar Parmar, a sports lawyer and principal director at Parmars, suggested Liverpool’s statements were part of a communications strategy designed to “keep the rhetoric going and show they are not taking it lying down”.

Stephen Taylor Heath, co-head of sports law at JWM Solicitors, concurred that Liverpool would find it hard to bring a legal case when it could not definitely be proved that allowing the goal to stand would have changed the result.

By way of comparison, he cited the example of Sheffield United in 2008 when a Football Association arbitration panel ruled the club had been relegated from the Premier League because West Ham United broke the rules when they signed Carlos Tevez.

Liverpool do not want a replay.   What they do want a transparent investigation into the procedural failings so lessons are learned going forward. Their immediate priorities are to establish what form the review will take, who will oversee it and what role the Premier League will play in it. The audio should provide a clearer understanding into how and why Diaz’s goal was disallowed.

They want to know why the decision was taken so quickly and why there was no intervention when the mix-up quickly became apparent.

 

 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Threat of financial calamity removed from Baggies

West Bromwich Albion had effectively been in decline ever since the club was sold to a Chinese consortium in August 2016, paying a figure north of £200m to buy former owner Jeremy Peace’s stake. Controlling shareholder Guochuan Lai’s ownership was fairly disastrous for the club, but his unloved tenure finally came to an end after Bilkul Football WBA, a company ultimately owned by Florida-based entrepreneur Shilen Patel and his father Dr Kiran Patel, acquired an 87.8% shareholding in West Bromwich Albion Group Limited, the parent company of West Bromwich Albion Football Club. This change in ownership was urgently required, due to the numerous financial problems facing West Brom, including growing high-interest debt and serious cash flow concerns, following years of no investment from the former owner. Indeed, West Brom’s auditors had already rung the alarm bell in the 2021/22 accounts when they cast doubt on the club’s ability to continue as a going concern without making player s

Gold standard ground boosts Tottenham's income

The gold standard in European football grounds is the Tottenham Hotspur stadium in north London, a £1bn construction project completed in 2019. Its impact on the club’s finances has become increasingly clear as the effects of the pandemic have faded. Previously, the average fan would spend less than £2 inside the ground on a typical match day, but now that figure is about £16, thanks to new facilities including the longest bar in Europe and an on-site microbrewery. Capacity has gone up from 36,000 at the club’s previous home of White Hart Lane to 62,000.  The new stadium — built on land adjacent to White Hart Lane — has opened the door to a broad range of other events that have helped to push commercial income up from €117mn in 2018 to €215mn in 2022. Last year, Tottenham hosted US singer Beyoncé for five nights on her global Renaissance tour, two NFL matches, as well as rugby games and heavyweight boxing bouts.  Money brought in from football has gone up too. Match day income is

Spurs to sell minority stake

Tottenham Hotspur is in talks to sell a minority stake in a deal that could value it at up to £3.75 billion and pave the way for Joe Lewis and his family to sever ties with the Premier League football club. Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy is seeking an investment that values the club at between £3.5 billion and £3.75 billion, including debt. While the terms of any deal have not been finalised, City sources expect Spurs to sell about 10 per cent. The club is being advised by bankers from Rothschild on the sale. Tottenham wants to raise fresh capital for new player signings and to help fund the development of an academy for its women’s team, as well as a 30-storey hotel next to its north London stadium. The financier Amanda Staveley, who brokered the deal for Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund to take over Newcastle United, is understood to be among the parties to have expressed an interest in Tottenham. Staveley’s fund, PCP Capital Partners, has raised about £500 million to depl