Football Association Independent Regulatory Commission (the Commission ) in the matter of an FA Rule E3 charge for misconduct brought by The FA against Mr Bacary Sagna of Manchester City FC. Regulatory Commission Decision 1. These are the written reasons for a decision made by an Independent Regulatory Commission which sat on Monday 16 January 2017. 2. The Commission members were Mr S Ripley (Chairman), Mr T Agana and Mr D Simpson 3. Mr P McCormack of the FA Judicial Services Department acted as Secretary to the Regulatory Commission. 4. Mr Sagna was charged by The FA with misconduct for a breach of FA Rule E3 in relation to a media comment he posted on his Instagram account (therealbac) following the Manchester City FC v Burnley FC Premier League fixture which took place on 2 January 2017. 5. On 2 January 2017 Mr. Sagna wrote the following on his Instagram account: 10 against 12..But still fighting and winning as a team. #together #mancity #youfreetothinkwhateveryouwant 1
6. The FA charged Mr Sagna with misconduct contrary to FA Rule E3(1) in that the publishing of the above comment constituted improper conduct in that it questions the integrity of the match official and/or alleges bias on the part of the match official, and/or brought the game into disrepute. 7. Mr. Sagna admitted the charge by way of the FA Disciplinary Proceedings Reply Form (NS) on 12 January 2017. He did not request a personal hearing and accepted that the matter would be dealt with by way of a paper hearing. 8. Thus, the only matter to be determined by the Commission was the imposition of an appropriate and proportionate sanction given all the circumstances. 9. The Commission had before it the following evidence: a. Screenshot of the comment published on Instagram account: therealbac; b. Copy of Mail Online article Bacary Sagna claims in outburst that Manchester City were 10 men playing 12 following win over Burnley published on 2 January 2017; c. A letter from Blake Lewendon of The FA to Mr. Bacary Sagna, dated 3 January 2017. d. A letter from Mr. Bacary Sagna to Mr. Blake Lewendon of The FA, dated 6 January 2017; and e. Extract of FA Rule E3 Season 2016-17. 2
10. The Commission noted that Mr Sagna had, at the time the comment was posted, 412,000 followers on his Instagram account and that the comment received 5,022 likes within 55 minutes of it having been posted. 11. The Commission noted that The Mail Online has a huge readership and that the article it published regarding Mr Sagna s comment was shared 1800 times and had generated 112 comments after having been published at 20:43 on 2 January 2017, with the article updated at 14:12 on 3 January 2017. 12. The Mail Online article stated "Manchester City recorded an impressive victory with just 10 men against Burnley in a 2-1 triumph but it appears not everyone was left fully satisfied at the Etihad Stadium. City's Bacary Sagna appeared to hit out at the match officials after the Premier League encounter, posting on Instagram that the game was like "10 against 12". 13. The Commission members acknowledged that a player publicly calling in to question the integrity of a professional referee is a serious matter. Publicly implying bias in respect of a match official clearly undermines the perception of fairness in the game and can only have a detrimental effect upon it. This effect is of course magnified where the player concerned is an experienced, high profile player, playing for a top Premier League club such as Mr Sagna. High profile players who have large social media followings have an added responsibility to take extra care with comments they post on social media platforms. 3
14. However, the Commission also considered that Mr Sagna ought to be credited significantly for the mitigating factors present, namely for his early admission to the Charge and for the apology contained in his letter dated 6 January 2016. Furthermore, he removed the comment shortly after posting it and Mr McCormack confirmed he had no previous misconduct offence on his disciplinary record in the current season or the preceding five seasons. 15. The Commission were aware of Mr Sagna s net wage per week by way of declaration on his Charge Reply Form and took that into consideration during deliberations. 16. The members reminded themselves of the seriousness of the words posted by Mr Sagna, particularly the factors highlighted at paragraph 13 above, whilst being cognisant of the remuneration received by Mr Sagna. The Commission did not deem a sporting sanction to be appropriate in this instance. 17. The Commission were minded to impose a higher sanction; however given the substantial mitigation present in this matter, as provided for at paragraph 14, they decided to reduce the financial penalty by one third. Accordingly, having considered all the evidence before it, the Commission decided that a fair and proportionate sanction, given all the particular circumstances, is that Mr Sagna be fined the sum of 40,000 and warned as to his future conduct. 4
18. This decision may be appealed in accordance with the relevant regulations of the prevailing FA Handbook. Stuart Ripley Regulatory Commission Chairman 18 January 2017 5