Alious
The Football Association (FA) pursued a substantial fine of over £1 million against Nottingham Forest for what they described as an “egregious, direct and public attack” on Video Assistant Referee (VAR) Stuart Attwell through a social media post. This incident unfolded following a match against Everton in April, where Forest believed they were unfairly denied three penalties.
On Friday, it was announced that Forest had been fined £750,000 for the controversial post. The FA argued that the fine should have been at least £1 million, given the severity of the attack on an official’s integrity and its potential impact on football as a whole, which they deemed “unparalleled.” However, Forest responded by calling the fine “disproportionate” and declared their intention to appeal the decision.
The social media post in question, published on Forest’s X (formerly Twitter) account on April 21, stated: “Three extremely poor decisions – three penalties not given – which we simply cannot accept. We warned the PGMOL that the VAR (Attwell) is a Luton fan before the game but they didn’t change him. Our patience has been tested multiple times. NFFC will now consider its options.”
The written reasons from the liability hearing revealed that Howard Webb, chief refereeing officer of Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL), and Mark Clattenburg, then a referee analyst for Forest, had discussed Attwell’s support for Luton two days before the Everton match. However, it was agreed that no formal request was made to replace Attwell as VAR.
The impact on Stuart Attwell was a significant factor in the panel’s decision. They noted the “stress, distress, fear and embarrassment” caused to Attwell, with the harm extending “well beyond the short period contended for by NFFC.” Howard Webb expressed concern that Forest’s post could potentially encourage abuse of officials and normalize questioning referees’ integrity.
The panel concluded that a reasonable observer would interpret Forest’s post as linking the rejected penalty claims to Attwell’s allegiances, thus finding the FA charge proven. They described it as “an extremely ill-informed accusation,” particularly given that Everton were also one of Luton’s relegation rivals.
The FA also raised concerns about Forest’s lack of clear steps to prevent similar incidents in the future. While Forest’s lawyer mentioned that their director of communications now had to approve all social media posts, the panel noted that this individual hadn’t been consulted about removing the post or apologizing to Attwell.
Following the initial post, Forest requested to listen to the VAR audio from the game, which PGMOL granted. The club also called for PGMOL to consider “contextual” rivalries in referee and VAR appointments, though this wasn’t included in the allegiances criteria published at the start of the season.
The incident led to wider repercussions within the club. Mark Clattenburg left his position at Forest on the day the club was charged by the FA. Manager Nuno Espirito Santo and defender Neco Williams also faced sanctions for their comments about the officiating in the Everton game. Nuno received a suspended one-match touchline ban, a £40,000 fine, and a warning, while Williams was warned and fined £24,000.
These events are part of a series of disciplinary issues involving Nottingham Forest. Nuno has since been charged with misconduct again in September after receiving a red card during a match against Brighton. Additionally, Forest owner Evangelos Marinakis was recently charged by the FA for allegedly behaving improperly near the tunnel at the City Ground following a defeat to Fulham.
This situation highlights the ongoing tensions between clubs, officials, and governing bodies in football, particularly regarding VAR decisions and social media communications. It also underscores the significant consequences that can arise from public criticism of match officials, even in the heat of controversial decisions.
Alious
