The Football Association v (1) Patrice Evra (2) Chelsea

Football Club

FA Regulatory Commission: Reasons for decisions made on 5

December 2008

1. This is the statement of findings and reasons requested under regulation 9 of

the FA Regulations for Football Association Disciplinary Action1 following a
Regulatory Commission decision at a hearing on 4 and 5 December 2008.
This Commission2 heard and ruled on charges brought by The FA against the
Manchester United footballer Patrice Evra and against Chelsea Football Club
(“Chelsea”).
2. All the charges arose out of an incident on the pitch at Stamford Bridge
shortly related to a warm-down session by several Manchester United players,
including Mr Evra, after the conclusion of a Premier League match between
Chelsea and Manchester United on Saturday 26 April 2008. It was therefore
decided to deal with all the charges at a single joint hearing, at which Mr
Evra’s case was presented by Mr Maurice Watkins, solicitor, and Chelsea’s
case by Mr Jim Sturman QC. The FA’s case against both was presented by
Mr Dario Giovanelli, Regulatory Legal Advisor for the FA.
3. The charge against Mr Evra, set out in an FA letter to him dated 18 July 2008,
was of misconduct in breach of FA Rule E3. It was alleged that his conduct
during the warm-down session was improper in that he: (a) pushed Mr Jason
Griffin, Head Groundsman of Chelsea, with his chest; and/or (b) struck Mr
Sam Bethell, a groundsman at Chelsea, on the side of his head; and/or (c) ran
to confront Mr Bethell; and/or (d) became involved, or attempted to become
involved, in a physical altercation with Mr Sam Bethell.

1
The FA Handbook Season 2008-2009 (“FA Handbook”) pp. 298 ff
2
Nicholas Stewart QC (Chairman) and Messrs Barry Bright, Roy Carter and David Pleat
 4. Mr Evra admitted the conduct in (a) and (c) but denied that it had been
improper. He denied the conduct in (b) and (d) altogether. Accordingly, the
charge was denied altogether by Mr Evra.
5. The two charges against Chelsea need a little preliminary explanation.
Originally, Chelsea FC as a club was not charged at all in relation to these
events. A charge of misconduct was brought against Mr Bethell personally,
by an FA letter to him dated 18 July 2008 (the same day as the Evra charge
letter). However, a preliminary issue was raised on behalf of Mr Bethell that
he was not subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of The FA at all. It was
agreed that the Chairman of this Commission should decide that issue on his
own (i.e. without a decision of the whole Commission being required). At a
preliminary hearing on 8 September 2008 the Commission ruled that The FA
did not have disciplinary jurisdiction over Mr Bethell and the charges against
him personally were therefore dismissed In summary, the point was that
despite its important role and public standing, The FA is in legal terms a
private organization and its disciplinary powers over any person (whether an
individual, club, league or association) can only be exercised if that person has
accepted The FA’s jurisdiction by direct or indirect agreement with The FA or
in some other way clearly consents to the exercise of jurisdiction. Mr
Bethell’s contract of employment with Chelsea did not contain anything
which subjected him to The FA’s disciplinary jurisdiction and he did not agree
to accept its exercise over him.
6. Chelsea was then charged on two counts: (i) misconduct under FA rule 22 for
breach of FA rule E20(a)3. The allegation was that in the course of the warm-
down on 26 April 2008 Chelsea failed to ensure that its employee Mr Bethell
conducted himself in an orderly fashion and/or refrained from any or a
combination of racist and/or abusive and/or provocative conduct and/or
language; and (ii) misconduct in breach of FA rule E1(b) for a breach of FA

3
FA Handbook page 112. The charge letter did not expressly refer to rule E22 but the basis of the charge
under the FA rules was clear from the express reference to rule E20(a) and was clearly well understood by
Chelsea.

2
 rule C(1)(c)(ii)4 by failing to specify in its contract of employment with Mr
Bethell that he was directly under the disciplinary control of The FA.
7. Chelsea made a preliminary application to the Commission for dismissal of
both charges. By agreement of the parties that application was decided by the
Chairman of this Commission alone on written submissions and on 10
November 2008 he issued a written decision dismissing that application, so
that the matter proceeded against Chelsea on both charges.
8. Chelsea denied both charges, though in relation to charge (ii) it was correctly
accepted that Mr Bethell’s contract of employment with Chelsea (a copy of
which was part of the evidence before this Commission) did not specify that
he was under the disciplinary control of The FA.
9. We turn now to the facts and the evidence. We received evidence on
Thursday 4 and Friday 5 December 2008 from 3 witnesses for The Football
Association5, 4 for Mr Evra6 and 10 for Chelsea7. Except as footnoted below,
all gave evidence-in-chief by written statement, in most cases with no or little
supplemental oral evidence-in-chief, and attended for cross-examination. The
effect of the joint hearing was that all the written and oral evidence presented
to this Commission was evidence on all charges against Mr Evra and Chelsea,
so far as relevant.
10. The evidence also included DVD footage from Sky Sports8, the French
television channel Canal+9 and from CCTV cameras10 at Stamford Bridge.
11. We have considered all the evidence before us, whether or not specifically
mentioned in these reasons, as well as all helpful submissions received from
the parties.

4
FA Handbook page 100.
5
Messrs Jason Griffin, Mike Phelan, Richard Hartis
6
Messrs Patrice Evra, Tony Strudwick, John O’Shea (who gave evidence by telephone) and Ji-Sung Park
(also by telephone)
7
Messrs Sam Bethell, Rodney Osmond (by written statement only without cross-examination as he was not
available by the time his evidence was reached), James Hibbert (by written statement for the same reason
as Osmond), Michael Headley, Joseph Quartie-Cofie, Scott Tingley, Craig Martin, Dean Tingley, Christian
Collison and David Barnard.
8
DVD title 1.3
9
DVD 1
10
DVDs 2-5

3
 12. The Chelsea v Manchester United game on 26 April 2008 was a lunchtime
fixture so that it was finished before 15:00. After the game the Chelsea
ground staff wished to give the playing pitch full and immediate attention,
especially having in mind that there was to be a Champions League match at
Stamford Bridge on the following Wednesday. Accordingly, around 15:00 the
Chelsea head groundsman Jason Griffin and his staff were already on the pitch
repairing damage and mowing. Because of the Champions League fixture he
had 17 men working that day, which was more than the average 10 or 11. Not
all 17 were actually on the pitch at one time but probably around 10 or so
were and there was more ground staff activity than usually seen immediately
after a match.
13. The Manchester United first team fitness coach Tony Strudwick wished to
conduct a warm-down session after the match with 7 players11. That was his
standard practice for players who had travelled but had not played or had
played only for part of the match. He was asked by Chelsea security staff to
wait until the stadium had emptied. Mr Strudwick agreed and he and his
group only went on to the pitch when instructed by the security staff. That
would have been very shortly after 15:00.
14. The situation was that the Chelsea ground staff work was well under way by
the time the Manchester United warm-down group went on to the pitch.
There is nothing unusual about ground staff work and away team warm-
downs taking place on the pitch at the same time. There are understandings
and rules applying to warm-downs and of course a certain amount of common
sense cooperation is required. In particular, a written notice was posted in the
away team dressing room setting out paragraph 26 of Premier League Rule
I.26. Paragraph 26.9 states: “any warming down after the conclusion of the
League Match shall last for no longer than 15 minutes and for that purpose
neither penalty area shall be used”. Mr Strudwick, as an experienced coach,
was well aware of those restrictions anyway. Of course, apart from rules a

11
Messrs Neville, Scholes, Pique, Park, Welbeck, Tevez, Evra and O’Shea.

4
 certain amount of common sense cooperation is required whenever ground
staff work and a players’ warm-down are taking place at the same time.
15. The atmosphere in the Manchester United dressing-room and among its
players after the game was not good. It was a very big game, they had lost
and they were frustrated and angry (mainly with themselves but certainly a
number of Manchester United players were in a rather wound-up state).
16. The warm-down started off with the group doing laps of the perimeter of the
pitch. No instructions had been given by the Chelsea ground staff about
where the Manchester United group should do their warm-down and although
Mr Strudwick told us that there was not much space and it was difficult to
know where to carry out the session, he did not ask either. The first suggested
trouble between Chelsea ground staff and the Manchester United warm-down
group was when the path of running Manchester United players crossed with
the path of lawnmowers in the hands of Chelsea ground staff. Mr Evra
described how he had to jump over a lawnmower to avoid any contact with it
and says that he stopped and asked the groundsman why he had tried to cut his
legs. Mr Evra says he was shocked and angry because he could have been
injured. He said that some of the ground staff seemed to try deliberately to get
in the Manchester United players’ way and that this particular groundsman
had suddenly accelerated towards Mr Evra, i.e. with his lawnmower.
17. It does seem that there was some slight tension and mutual irritation
developing at this early stage of the warm-down. Manchester United players
were at least as responsible as Chelsea ground staff. Gary Neville in
particular was behaving in an abusive and provocative manner towards
Chelsea ground staff. However, we do not believe there was anything serious
at that stage, and certainly nothing dangerous. We find Mr Evra’s description
exaggerated.
18. Mr Strudwick’s detailed description of the warm-down session is not
important until we get to his decision to use part of a penalty area for the
session. He knew that was against the Premier League rule but he decided
there was simply nowhere else to run. He did not consult any Chelsea ground

5
 staff before starting his group running to and fro across the penalty area
(where a one-man hand-guided mower was also going up and down from the
18 yard line to the goal line). This was not a good judgment by Mr Strudwick.
19. After one run across the field by the warm-down group, the Chelsea chief
groundsman Mr Griffin approached Mr Strudwick. That was Mr Griffin’s
first communication with them as a group.
20. Mr Strudwick’s account is that Mr Griffin “was carrying a pitchfork and his
body language supported an angry demeanour. He was instantly aggressive
and the tone of his voice was hostile and confrontational.” Mr Strudwick says
he was surprised at how aggressive Mr Griffin was being and he seemed more
intent on confrontation than accommodation. An argument then ensued,
during which Mr Griffin was swearing. At the same time, another Chelsea
groundsman continued to drive machinery into the path of the players, which
Mr Strudwick thought was extremely dangerous. Mr Evra then ran over and
pushed his chest into Mr Griffin to separate Mr Griffin and Mr Strudwick. Mr
Evra told Mr Griffin to put his fork down and Mr Griffin replied, “I’ll shove
the ******* fork up your arse.”
21. Mr Evra’s account of those events is very similar. He was about 10 yards
away from Mr Strudwick and Mr Griffin. He saw them arguing. He saw Mr
Griffin pull at Mr Strudwick’s shirt and acting aggressively towards them. He
was concerned about Mr Strudwick’s safety and so ran over and barged Mr
Griffin with his chest to try to separate them. He told Mr Griffin to put his
fork down and Mr Griffin gave the response in exactly the terms described in
Mr Strudwick’s evidence.
22. We also had Mr Griffin’s account, which is different. His written statement
dated 18 June 2008 had wrongly identified Mr Strudwick as Mr Mike Phelan
but he had not known either of their names at the time of the events and
readily accepted the correction of the name. Mr Griffin says he asked Mr
Strudwick politely if he could use the other side of the pitch (where Mr Griffin
told us there had been enough room for the warm-down group). He told Mr
Strudwick that the players should get out of the penalty area as it was

6
 dangerous when mowers were being used and they should not be in the box
anyway. He says that Mr Strudwick said “We can do what we ******* like
and go where we ******* like”. Mr Griffin consistently denied that he had
been aggressive or had sworn at Mr Strudwick. The barge by Mr Evra had
caught him on the back towards his right shoulder and knocked him off
balance.
23. Having seen and heard Mr Griffin, Mr Strudwick, Mr Evra given evidence
and being cross-examined, we broadly prefer Mr Griffin’s account. We were
favourably impressed by Mr Griffin as a witness, who came across as frank,
calm and sensible. Mr Strudwick we found less reliable. At some point in his
evidence he tried to create a slightly misleading impression that Mr Evra had
simply intervened between Mr Strudwick and Mr Griffin rather then gone
straight for Mr Griffin as the target of his barge. Moreover, though we
recognise that demeanour in the witness box may not always closely reflect
demeanour and behaviour on other occasions, Mr Strudwick struck us
distinctly more likely than Mr Griffin to have become angry and aggressive in
their argument on the pitch on 26 April 2008.
24. Probably the argument between the two of them was a little more heated and
aggressive on both sides than Mr Griffin described but we reject Mr
Strudwick’s picture of a discussion in which Mr Griffin was the aggressive
and unreasonable one by comparison with Mr Strudwick. However, this
finding is not critical anyway in considering Mr Evra’s actions. There was no
good reason for Mr Evra to have run over and barged Mr Griffin as he did. It
was unnecessarily and gratuitously aggressive of Mr Evra. Mr Strudwick
expressly told us in his oral evidence that Mr Griffin had not touched him. Mr
Evra’s suggestion that he was concerned about Mr Strudwick’s safety is far-
fetched. They were two grown men having an apparently strong verbal
disagreement but no more than that. The clear implication by Mr Evra that
Mr Griffin’s pitchfork gave some reason for concern about Mr Strudwick’s
safety is ridiculous.

7
25. It is at this relatively early point in his account of these events that we start to
reject aspects of Mr Evra’s (and Mr Strudwick’s) account. We do not
accept that the verbal exchange - Mr Evra telling Mr Griffin to put his
pitchfork down and Mr Griffin telling Mr Evra in graphic terms exactly where
he would put his pitchfork – happened in that way. Some such strong
language and probably some such phrases were used by somebody in the
course of the overall incident that afternoon. But we do not see from the
evidence that Mr Griffin was raising or holding his pitchfork in a way which
would have led Mr Evra to ask him to put it down in the first place. We find
Mr Evra’s account exaggerated and unreliable. It is an attempt to justify a
physical intervention by him which cannot reasonably be justified.
26. We do not have to answer the question who and what really started off all the
trouble that afternoon. There are various culprits and they include a couple of
other Manchester United players. What we do note particularly here is that
the very first act of aggressive physical contact by anybody was Mr Evra’s
barge into Mr Griffin. It was certainly that barge which sparked off the rest of
the unhappy events which then ensued.
27. When Mr Evra barged into Mr Griffin there was an immediate reaction by
others on the pitch. Manchester United players and other staff and Chelsea
ground staff ran over to Mr Griffin, Mr Evra and Mr Strudwick. We do not
blame them for that or find it surprising. That is quite different from Mr
Evra’s intervention in the Griffin/Strudwick argument.
28. There was an immediate fracas. One of the Chelsea ground staff who had run
over and became vigorously involved in that fracas was Mr Bethell. Mr Evra
says that Mr Bethell shouted “What do you want Evra, you ******* ****?”.
Apart from the important matter of the alleged racial abuse, which we do
consider fully below, it is not necessary for us to explore in detail exactly who
said what and when. It is accepted all round that there was a great deal of very
strong language being used throughout the rest of the overall incident. It is
also clear to us that from this point Mr Bethell’s attitude and language,
particularly towards Mr Evra, were extremely aggressive. In the well-

8
 understood phrase, Mr Bethell “lost it”. So did Mr Evra. The effect was that
they provoked each other.
29. There was then a wider scuffle involving a number of people. But it was Mr
Bethell and Mr Evra who came into direct physical conflict. The DVD
evidence does not itself show whether or not Mr Evra actually struck Mr
Bethell. It is just not clear enough. Mr Evra denies it but we accept Mr
Bethell’s evidence that he was struck on or near his right ear and it was clearly
Mr Evra who struck him. We note that Mr Evra is right-handed but do not see
that as a reason to reject that conclusion. Mr Griffin also confirmed his
written statement that he clearly saw Mr Evra punch Mr Bethell on the side of
the head and we have already said that we find Mr Griffin a reliable witness.
Mr Bethell does not claim that it was a hard punch or that he was actually hurt
beyond some redness around his ear. It is not even clear whether it was a true
punch or more of a slap. It is probably best described a clip. But whatever
the label we conclude that Mr Evra did strike Mr Bethell on the side of his
head. That is violent conduct. Not dangerous and in fact around the bottom
of the scale in terms of actual physical impact, but clearly violent conduct
within the meaning of that phrase in The FA rules.
30. We have no doubt that Mr Evra was provoked by Mr Bethell but we make two
comments on that: First, provocation is not a defence to a charge of violent
conduct but only comes in as potential mitigation; secondly, it was Mr Evra’s
own violent conduct towards Mr Griffin which sparked off what followed.
Mr Bethell had not been involved in any way in the Evra/Griffin barging
incident.
31. Chelsea stewards as well as ground staff were present in that fracas, as well as
Manchester United players and coaching staff. Others took immediate steps
to stop the altercation between Mr Evra and Mr Bethell. Mr Evra was pulled
away by colleagues, the entire combined group involved in the fracas started
to disperse and the incident could and should have calmed down and ended at
that point.

9
 32. Mr Bethell’s ground staff colleague Craig Martin took hold of him. Mr Evra’s
witness statement says that at that point he “simply started walking away”. It
was not quite like that. Mr Evra was being escorted away. The direct
altercation between Mr Bethell and Mr Evra continued verbally. Mr Bethell
was shouting violent abuse at Mr Evra. “******* idiot”, which Mr Bethell
thinks was a phrase he used, would not have been the strongest term – though
Mr Bethell has never accepted that he used racist language of any sort. Mr
Evra was also shouting back, though probably not in as strong terms as Mr
Bethell.
33. Mr Bethell says, and we accept, that as Mr Evra was walking away he turned
and gestured to Mr Bethell in a manner understood as “I’ll see you outside”.
We have absolutely no doubt that at this point Mr Bethell was engaged in a
sustained very strong and angry verbal abuse towards Mr Evra. This would
certainly have provoked Mr Evra, who had himself not calmed down from the
physical altercation with Mr Bethell and was directing verbal abuse at Mr
Bethell as well as the gesture just mentioned. When Mr Evra was some 15 or
20 yards away from Mr Bethell he broke free of whoever was restraining him
and (as he expressly admitted) ran back to confront Mr Bethell.
34. The DVD evidence but also very clearly the still photographs 1-812 show that
Mr Evra was extremely wound up and was moving strongly towards Mr
Bethell in a manner which clearly threatened another physical altercation
between the two of them. As Mr Evra approached near to Mr Bethell, Mr
Bethell adopted a stance - seen in photographs 3, 4 and 5 – with his left hand
held up flat out in front and his right hand held back in a position ready to
punch. Mr Bethell says that this was a defensive position: If Mr Evra touched
or got past Mr Bethell’s front (left) hand he was going to punch Mr Evra with
his right hand.
35. Mr Evra says that when he ran back towards Mr Bethell it was never his
intention for that confrontation to be of a physical nature. He wanted to
confront Mr Bethell and stand his ground and to ask him why he was

12
Photograph 8 is the first in time then 1 to 7 in that order.

10
 threatening him and shouting abuse. Mr Bethell says that Mr Evra was in
attack mode (which does reflect what we saw in the Canal + footage on
DVD1). We do accept that as he arrived directly in front of Mr Bethell, Mr
Evra did not just pitch straight into him, though as it turned out the hesitation
was only momentary. However, it is clear from photograph 5 that at a point
where Mr Evra was still free of any restraint by colleagues or others around,
he and Mr Bethell came very close together. Mr Evra’s left hand was flat up
very close to Mr Bethell’s flat front hand.
36. What happened next was that Mr Bethell took a swing at Mr Evra with his
right hand, but missed. Whether or not he missed because Mr Evra was pulled
away at that precise point is impossible to say, but it is clear that within a
moment Mr Evra was being held and pulled back by colleagues and Chelsea
stewards. Others moved to restrain Mr Bethell.
37. There is doubt whether Mr Bethell and Mr Evra came into any actual physical
contact in this last altercation. It is probable that their left hands at least
touched at some point immediately after what we see in photograph 5. But
that is not a significant point anyway. What happened at that stage was in our
view a physical altercation between Mr Evra and Mr Bethell, even if
fortunately Mr Bethell’s punch missed and the scuffle was rapidly stopped by
others’ restraining intervention before either Mr Evra or Mr Bethell laid any
sort of punch or hit on each other. Mr Evra had not run back 15 yards to
conduct a calm exchange of words with Mr Bethell. He ran back to have a
close up aggressive physical confrontation with Mr Bethell which, as he must
have known, had a very high risk of developing into some sort of physical
conflict between them. We find that element (d) of the charge is proved
(though we add that it makes no material difference to our overall view of this
charge and the appropriate penalty whether or not what happened at that point
is correctly viewed as an actual physical altercation).
38. It is after the first altercation between Mr Bethell and Mr Evra that Mr Bethell
is alleged to have shouted at Mr Evra “I’ll ******* have you, you *******

11
 immigrant” – an allegation which Mr Bethell has consistently and vehemently
denied.
39. The two witnesses who say they heard those words directed by Mr Bethell at
Mr Evra are the Manchester United first team coach Mr Mike Phelan and the
goalkeeping coach Mr Richard Hartis.
40. There is some confusion and inconsistency in their placing of the alleged
racist insult. We should not have expected complete detailed accuracy and
consistency in witnesses’ recollections of a fast-moving disorderly series of
events. However, there are aspects of the evidence of Mr Phelan and Mr
Hartis which raise serious questions about the reliability of their claims about
the racist remark.
41. Mr Phelan’s first signed written statement was dated 17 May 2008, just over 3
weeks after the events. It does not clearly distinguish the first and second
altercations between Mr Bethell and Mr Evra but in the light of all the
evidence it is clear that he was talking about the second altercation, after Mr
Evra had broken free and run back to confront Mr Bethell again. Mr Phelan
places the racist remark clearly at a point where Mr Bethell has his right arm
raised with his fist clenched as if he is about to throw a punch.
42. Mr Phelan says he recalls looking directly at Mr Bethell at this point because
he was concerned that he might hit Mr Evra. This strongly suggests that
events had reached at least the point seen in photograph 3, because until then
Mr Evra had not reached the point where he was within Mr Bethell’s striking
range.
43. Mr Phelan’s second signed written statement is dated 3 October 2008, more
than 5 months after the events. That statement is slightly longer and more
detailed than the first and does distinguish between the first Bethell-Evra
altercation and the second renewed altercation. The sequence of events as
described in that statement is that there was a melee (the first Bethell-Evra
altercation) but it did not last long and the parties soon separated. In
paragraph 6 of that statement the racist remark is clearly and unequivocally
placed before Mr Evra ran back to confront Mr Bethell for the second Bethell-

12
 Evra altercation. As in his first statement, Mr Phelan describes his attention
being focussed on Mr Bethell, who had his right arm raised with his fist
clenched as if he was about to throw a punch. However, the racist remark is
placed at significantly different points in time in the two statements: In the
first statement Mr Bethell and Mr Evra are already squared up close to each
other, in the course of the second altercation, when the remark is made. But in
the second statement the remark comes before Mr Evra has even started to run
back towards Mr Bethell for the second Bethell-Evra altercation.
44. It should also be noted that in his oral evidence Mr Phelan told us in express
terms that at the time the words “******* immigrant” were used, Mr Bethell
and Mr Evra were being restrained – which could only have been either:
(a) much earlier than is consistent with the rest of Mr Phelan’s
evidence (if it was part of the first and not the second Bethell-
Evra altercation, which it was not, as that was not the overall
thrust of Mr Phelan’s evidence at all or Mr Hartis’s evidence
discussed below); or
(b) much later (if it was in the course of the second altercation,
which means that it was well after Mr Phelan himself places the
remark in paragraphs 6 and 7 of his second statement – as he is
unequivocally saying there that Mr Evra when ran back to
confront Mr Bethell a second time that was after the alleged
racist insult).
45. Although, as already stated, we should not have expected entirely consistent
recollections on details, such discrepancies on the sequence of key events cast
more doubt on the reliability of a witness’s evidence.
46. When we consider the corresponding evidence of Mr Hartis those doubts are
reinforced. His first written statement, dated 19 May 2008, describes the
alleged racist remark in word for word the same terms as Mr Phelan’s first
statement: “I’ll ******* have you, you ******* immigrant”. He is expressly
placing that remark in the course of an altercation between Mr Bethell and Mr
Evra and there is no doubt that he is meaning the second Bethell-Evra

13
 altercation, as the separation of Mr Evra and Mr Bethell mentioned in
paragraph 6 of the statement is the separation which took Mr Evra back to the
Manchester United dressing room and brought the whole incident to a close,
in Mr Hartis’s words, “without any further issue”.
47. Mr Hartis’s second statement is dated 3 October 2008. Although it is not very
precise on the sequence of events, it is crystal clear that it places the alleged
racist remark after Mr Evra has been led away from the first Bethell-Evra
altercation. He also expressly confirmed in his oral evidence that the remark
was made before Mr Bethell and Mr Evra came together the second time.
48. The inconsistencies in Mr Phelan’s evidence about the sequence of events are
not just the normal expected uncertainty about detail. They cast serious doubt
on the reliability of their overall evidence.
49. If Mr Phelan and Mr Hartis are right in their recollection, then it is in the first
place surprising that Mr Evra himself did not hear the remark. According to
Mr Hartis’s oral evidence, Mr Bethell and Mr Evra were about 4 yards apart
when the remark was made. If the remark was made it was specifically
directed at Mr Evra. Of course, English is not Mr Evra’s first language and
when he gave evidence to this Commission it was apparent that his own
spoken English is far from fluent. But according to Mr Phelan’s and Mr
Hartis’s timing of the remark, Mr Evra would have been standing facing Mr
Bethell when Mr Bethell directed the remark at Mr Evra. Mr Phelan and Mr
Hartis both say they were about 6 metres away from Mr Bethell when the
racist remark was made.
50. Even if we disregard the fact that Mr Evra has never claimed to have heard
such a remark on that day, it is notable that there were several other people far
nearer to Mr Bethell at the critical point in time than were either Mr Phelan or
Mr Hartis. Nobody else has come forward with an allegation of any such
remark. Mr Martin and one of the Chelsea stewards were right next to Mr
Bethell: see photographs 3, 4 and 5. Two Chelsea stewards Mr Michael
Headley and Mr Joseph Quartey-Cofie, were not as near but can be seen in
photographs 1 and 2 trying to restrain Mr Evra. They are both English and

14
 both black. We consider that one or both of them would have picked up the
alleged remark, if it was made at all in the terms and anywhere close to the
time alleged by Mr Phelan and Mr Hartis. Despite whatever understandable
loyalties might otherwise exist among Chelsea staff, we do not consider it
plausible that if either of them had heard the remark he would have withheld
that allegation and attended to give evidence to this Commission on behalf of
Mr Bethell.
51. When Mr Bethell gave evidence before this Commission, we found his firm
denial of the racist remark convincing. We do not accept his own judgment
that his behaviour on that day was not out of control. Whatever his own view,
by any reasonable yardstick it was out of control. There was a discrepancy
between his evidence and Mr Martin’s evidence about when Mr Bethell first
knew that who Mr Evra was by name, but that does not lead us to doubt that
Mr Bethell was telling us the truth when he consistently denied the racist
remark.
52. Mr Griffin was the very first witness before us. The next two were Mr Phelan
and Mr Hartis. Even before hearing the rest of the witnesses, we did not feel
able to place strong reliance on their evidence. Mr Phelan particularly did not
impress us. He supported his contention that he heard the racist remark by
telling us that throughout the renewed incident following Mr Evra’s running
back towards Mr Bethell, his Mr Phelan’s attention was directly focussed on
Mr Bethell. There is a point in DVD4 where Mr Phelan remained adamant
that he was looking directly at Mr Bethell though the members of the
Commission could all see plainly that Mr Phelan was actually looking more
sideways at his own colleague Mr Strudwick, who was himself clearly in an
aggressive state and appeared to be shouting towards the Chelsea group. That
is not the precise point at which he claimed in his statement to have heard the
racist remark but it nevertheless reinforced our doubts about Mr Phelan’s
evidence. We were also not convinced by Mr Hartis, who claims to have
heard the same remark from a position at a similar distance from Mr Bethell.
We prefer the evidence of Mr Bethell himself.

15
53. For the reasons summarised above, our finding is the alleged racist remark by
Mr Bethell (calling Mr Evra a “******* immigrant”) was not made. That
takes out of the first charge against Chelsea the ingredient of racist conduct
and/or language by its employee Mr Bethell, which is not proven. All other
elements of the charge are proven on the evidence. It is clear that Mr Bethell
did not conduct himself in an orderly fashion and that he engaged in abusive
and provocative conduct and language.
54. There is an important point to stress: The allegation of the racist remark is
completely irrelevant to the charges against Mr Evra. He has never claimed to
have heard any such remark. It follows that he claims no provocation by any
racist remark or any justification for his actions as a result of any such remark.
55. Our finding about the racist remark therefore affects only the charge against
Chelsea
56. The offence by Chelsea under FA rule 20/22 is one of strict liability. A club’s
specific responsibility under rule 20 is to ensure that its employees’ conduct
does not fall foul of what is required under that rule. The specific and limited
defence available under rule 22 in the case of spectators, supporters and
followers shows clearly that where, as in the case of responsibility for an
employees’ conduct, that defence is not available, the club is strictly liable
whether or not it was actually within its power to have done anything to
prevent the offending conduct. Mr Sturman, on behalf of Chelsea, submitted
that as under rule 22 the actual offence by a club arose only where it had
failed effectively to discharge its responsibility under rule 20, that showed that
there had to have been some actual failure (and beyond a de minimis failure)
by the club to have done something which it could have done and which could
have prevented its employee’s conduct. That wording in rule 22 simply
reflects the position that (apart from the particular situation for which a
specific defence is provided under that rule) a club is guilty of misconduct
whenever the designated offending conduct by an employee has actually
occurred.

16
57. Mr Sturman sensibly did not contest the view that for the purposes of rule 20
Mr Bethell’s conduct had occurred while he had been attending at or taking
part in the match (which is what the rule requires). The rule clearly extends to
time and events before and after the actual game which would include the
relevant events in this case. Any other interpretation of the rule would be
artificially restrictive.
58. What Mr Sturman did submit was the rule 20 was most often used to cover
on-pitch incidents where several players had been involved, such as where a
brawl had broken out, but had not previously been applied to impose liability
on a club for the actions of a single employee. As a factual matter, it appears
that Mr Sturman is probably wrong and that on at least one occasion there has
been a charge under rule 20/22 based on actions of a single employee.
However, it does not matter whether that is right or wrong as rule 20 contains
no such distinction, either expressly or by implication, and plainly does apply
in the case of actions by a single employee.
59. Accordingly, Chelsea is guilty of misconduct under FA rule 22 for failing
effectively to discharge its responsibility to ensure that during the course of
the post-match warm-down by Manchester United players on 26 April 2008
its employee Mr Sam Bethell conducted himself in an orderly fashion and
refrained from abusive and provocative conduct and language.
60. Chelsea is also guilty on the second charge under FA rule E(1)(b) for a breach
of Rule C1(c)(iii) in failing to specify in its contract of employment with Mr
Bethell that he was directly under the disciplinary control of The Football
Association. There is no answer to its liability on this charge. It is
unfortunate that the whole section of the FA rules containing rule C is headed
“C. RULES RELATING TO PLAYERS” but there is no serious room for
misunderstanding of rule C1(c)(ii) and (iii), which unequivocally do require a
club to include such a provision in every employee’s contract.
61. This Commission nevertheless accepts that Chelsea genuinely failed to
appreciate that this provision was required in ground staff contracts of
employment and we have no doubt that its misunderstanding is shared by

17
 probably all and certainly the vast majority of football clubs under The FA’s
jurisdiction. Although in the particular circumstances of this case the effect
has been the dismissal of the initial charge against Mr Bethell, we do not
consider that it would be fair or useful to impose any sanction on Chelsea FC
for this breach. Moreover, it may very well be that in the light of such
widespread misunderstanding by clubs, early consideration will be given by
The FA to the scope and workability of Rule C1(c) in its present form and the
possible need for revision.
62. The charge of breach of FA rule E3 against Mr Evra is proven. His conduct
was improper in that during the warm-down session on 26 April 2008 he: (a)
pushed Mr Jason Griffin, Head Groundsman of Chelsea, with his chest; and/or
(b) struck Mr Sam Bethell, a groundsman at Chelsea, on the side of his head;
and/or (c) ran to confront Mr Bethell; and (d) became involved in a physical
altercation with Mr Sam Bethell. It is a single charge containing those four
elements though any one of the four, proven on the evidence, would have
sustained the charge as proven.
63. We now turn to penalties for the proven breaches by Mr Evra and by Chelsea
FC. The range of possible penalties is set out in regulation 9 of the FA
Regulations for Football Association Disciplinary Action13. We have already
said why we impose no penalty on the second charge against Chelsea.
64. We make it clear that we are punishing only Mr Evra for his own individual
actions which constituted misconduct in breach of FA Rule E3 and Chelsea
FC for its own failure to discharge its own responsibility under FA Rule E20.
Manchester United FC was never charged in relation to the events on 26 April
2008 and Mr Sam Bethell is no longer charged since the dismissal of the case
against him personally.
65. We have decided to suspend Mr Evra for four matches, with effect from
Monday 22 December so as to give him and his advisers the opportunity of
considering an appeal and take such action as they might think appropriate for
a further stay of the suspension. We also fine Mr Evra £15,000.

13
FA Handbook page 303.

18
66. We do not consider that a fine, with or without a reprimand or warning, comes
near being an effective and adequate penalty to punish and mark the
seriousness of Mr Evra’s offence. It is clear to this Commission that a
suspension is required.
67. It must be borne in mind that Mr Evra’s proven misconduct on 26 April 2008
involved the following: (1) he was the first person in the whole incident
physically to assault another person, when he barged into Mr Griffin; (2) that
assault was unprovoked and unjustified (and was nothing to do with anything
passing between Mr Evra and Mr Bethell, which came afterwards and was
actually triggered off by Mr Evra’s barge on Mr Griffin); (3) Mr Evra then
committed a further separate assault by striking Mr Bethell, a member of the
Chelsea ground staff; (4) although we have regard to Mr Bethell’s own
aggressive and provocative conduct, that does not justify Mr Evra’s action
which, although the blow was slight, constituted violent conduct under The
FA Rules; (5) Mr Evra then broke away from restraint and deliberately ran
back towards Mr Bethell to become involved in his third physical altercation
of the overall incident; (6) although Mr Evra was subject to strong
provocation by Mr Bethell, that does not justify his action in going back into
the fray, especially following the two assaults already committed by him.
68. It was submitted by Mr Watkins in mitigation on Mr Evra’s behalf that when
it came to the question of penalty Mr Evra’s offence was comparable to
offences involving aggressive barging committed by Ryan Giggs and
Cristiano Ronaldo during a match in December 2003, which he briefly
described and for which they were fined £7,500 [*Check – was it £7,500 or
£3,500] and £4,000 respectively with a reprimand or warning in each case.
One member of the Commission was already reasonably familiar with the
details of those two cases. They are nowhere near comparable to the overall
misconduct of Mr Evra as summarised above. This Commission listened to
Mr Watkins’s submissions that Mr Evra should be punished by a reprimand or
warning only or, if that were not the Commission’s view, then with at most a
fine and a reprimand or warning. The submission was so unrealistic that it

19
 gave us no useful help. It had become obvious to every member of the
Commission that a punishment which did not include suspension from
matches would be clearly inadequate to reflect Mr Evra’s totally unacceptable
and unprofessional conduct.
69. We remind ourselves that under the FA Disciplinary Procedures Concerning
Field Offences in First Team Competitive Matches for Players and Officials of
the FA Premier League etc14 dismissal for a single instance of violent conduct
on the field of play, however slight, triggers an automatic 3 match suspension.
Mr Watkins, for Mr Evra, stressed that these incidents had not taken place on
the field of play in front of millions of television viewers. That is true but we
do not regard that as a significant difference. These were actions of
misconduct by a professional footballer in the course of footballing activities
subject to the jurisdiction of The FA. All these events took place on a Premier
League pitch immediately after a game with a lot of people about and in
circumstances where the events were bound to be reported in the media. In
any case, more directly to the point is that the proven charge against Mr Evra
includes his involvement in the three distinct physical altercations described in
these reasons. That is reflected in the form of the charge, where (a) is the
assault on Mr Griffin, (b) is the assault by striking Mr Bethell and (c) and (d)
together are the further altercation as a result of Mr Evra breaking free and
going back into the fray. In our judgment a 4 match suspension is required to
mark the overall seriousness of Mr Evra’s misconduct. The addition of a fine
of £15,000 is in Mr Evra’s case a relatively minor penalty for him15 and is a
further mark of our firm and public disapproval of his misconduct.
70. We have taken account of Mr Evra’s own very good disciplinary record.
Claimed credit for admitting the factual elements (a) and (c) in the charge
against him does not have any material effect on the decided penalty given
that his defence throughout was that there had been nothing improper in those
actions (and of course he denied elements (b) and (d) altogether).

14
FA Handbook page 267 at 272.
15
It represents no more than a few days’ basic salary.

20
 71. The penalty for the first charge proven against Chelsea FC is a fine of
£25,000. The responsibility of Chelsea FC under the rules is strict and is
clear, as we have described above. Broad guidance can be gained from fines
imposed on Chelsea FC under FA rule 20/22 for confrontations or brawls on
the pitch involving several players and on one occasion club officials as well.
In the past four seasons Chelsea has been fined amounts ranging from £10,000
to £40,000 on such charges and on one occasion – a serious incident at the
Carling Cup Final in February 2007 involving players and club officials – was
fined £100,000.
72. Mr Bethell’s own behaviour was very bad. On the other hand, leaving aside
some fairly trivial and rather unconvincing complaints by Manchester United
players and other employees about provocation by Chelsea employees before
Mr Evra’s barging of Mr Griffin, the rest of the Chelsea staff – ground staff
and stewards – appear to have acted responsibly and with restraint in an
attempt to prevent continuing conflict and calm things down. In accordance
with FA rules 20 and 22, Chelsea are to be held responsible for their own
failure to ensure Mr Bethell’s proper conduct and we consider that a fine of
£25,000 appropriately marks this particular breach of the club’s responsibility.
73. Under 8.8. of the FA Regulations for Football Association Disciplinary
Action16each party bears its own costs of bringing or defending the charges.
All the separate costs incurred in relation to the holding of this Regulatory
Commission, including the specific matters mentioned in 8.8(b) are to be paid
as to half each by Mr Evra and Chelsea FC.
74. We remind the parties that under 1.2 of the FA Regulations for Football
Association Appeals17 they have 14 days from the date of these written
reasons for lodging of any Notice of Appeal.

16
FA Handbook page 304.
17
FA Handbook page 308

21
 Nicholas Stewart QC
(Chairman)

Barry Bright

Roy Carter

David Pleat

12 December 2008

22