An independent commission ruled that Mikel Arteta didn’t breach FA regulations with his comments after Arsenal’s trip to Newcastle United, and the written reasons contain some interesting information.
One month and ten days after Arsenal’s trip to Newcastle United, the public finally learned the verdict of the independent regulatory commission’s investigation into the recent charge against Mikel Arteta.
The FA had charged Arteta with a breach of Rule E3.1, alleging that his comments following Arsenal’s match against Newcastle United were insulting to match officials and/or detrimental to the game and/or brought the game into disrepute.
But the independent commission ruled that the charge was not proven, and Arteta will face no further punishment.
The commission published its reasons for the decision, and there are a number of segments worth highlighting.
To begin with, the very first page of the 36-page document confirms Arsenal hired a top lawyer in Ian Mill KC to represent them, alongside their in-house legal counsel. The club were clearly taking this seriously.
The next section of note is paragraph 7.b., which reports that Mikel Arteta was told by certain Arsenal players that Joe Willock “had expressed the view that the ball had gone out of play before he crossed into the penalty area”.
Willock crossed the ball into the box in the build-up to Newcastle United’s only goal of the game, and the VAR decision to allow the goal was based on a judgement that the ball may still have been in play. It was too close for VAR to call.
Willock’s own judgement is obviously not infallible, and TV coverage was inconclusive. But it’s certainly worth mentioning that the player himself reportedly believed the ball had been out of play.
In response to the FA’s charge, Arteta argued that his interview comments came from “a passionate desire to improve standards (in match officiating and VAR) and not simply pick up on perceived injustices suffered by [himself] or [Arsenal] during the match”.
Arteta pointed out that his comments didn’t appear to fall within any of the types of behaviours referenced in FA manuals to consistute a breach:
- implication of bias on the part of a match official
- questioning the integrity of a match official
- using personally offensive comments about a match official
- using abusive or insulting comments about a match official
- making comments which are detrimental to the game
Arteta also submitted examples of post-match media comments by other managers which had not resulted in a charge.
The FA argued that Arteta’s comments were “highly insulting” and “inflammatory”, and that they were directed at the match officials, not at the decision to disallow the goal. They added that Arteta’s tone was “vitriolic”.
But the FA’s legal counsel did later confirm that it is acceptable to disagree with or criticise a decision as long as it is done reasonably and appropriately.
The next section of note is 26.a., where the commission notes that Arteta was “an impressive witness”, giving evidence “carefully and honestly”.
They accepted that it was not Arteta’s intention to insult any match official or work against the interests of the game.
In paragraph 36, the commission judges that the way Arteta delivered his post-match comments was not “in any way improper or inappropriate”. They write that “he spoke carefully and in a considered manner”.
Next, in paragraph 38, the FA argue that Arteta’s high profile in football was relevant to the charge, and that the same words spoken by him could consistute a breach even if they wouldn’t for a lower-profile individual.
But the commission agreed with Arteta’s lawyers that the manager’s status was irrelevant. Either his comments were insulting or they weren’t.
In paragraph 49, the commission highlights that the Premier League recently acknowledged “systemic weaknesses in the VAR processes”, and the need for improvement in the general standard of VAR, which is consistent with Arteta’s view.
The commission points out that Arteta had been involved in a meeting with the PGMOL, the Premier League, and other managers just two days prior to the Newcastle match, and he viewed it as “wholly unproductive”.
This meeting and the lack of progress made in it was therefore part of why Arteta was so frustrated following the Newcastle match. The commission were left “in no doubt that [Arteta’s] evidence on this topic was genuine”.
In paragraph 60, the commission write that in their view, Arteta was not implying incompetence or a poor standard of officiating on the part of the match officials, but rather directing his criticism at the VAR system and processes.
The commission write in paragraph 66.c. that suggesting that those who play in perhaps the best league in the world deserve a better VAR system does not qualify as “bringing the game into disrepute”.
In paragraph 72.b., the commission point out that it was suggested in cross-examination that Arteta had “deliberately and carefully sought not to make express criticism of the match officials…only to do so in disguised or veiled terms”.
In other words, the suggestion was that Arteta was trying to use veiled insults at the officials that he could later claim were about something else. But the commission writes that they “did not find that to be the case”.
In conclusion, the commission ruled that Arteta did not insult the match officials, he did not bring the game into disrepute, and his comments were not detrimental to the best interests of the game.
To address one other paragraph doing the rounds on social media, a letter from Arsenal originally claimed that when Arteta had used the word “disgrace”, he intended the meaning of the Spanish word “desgracia”, meaning misfortune, tragedy, or bad luck.
But this part of Arsenal’s letter didn’t end up being used in Arteta’s defence, and he actually clarified to the commission that he intended to use the English word with the English meaning.
The disgrace/desgracia claim was simply a miscommunication between Arteta and Arsenal, and though the “lost in translation” defence makes for a good viral tweet, in reality it had no effect on the final verdict.
With all of that being said, we’ll look forward to seeing Arteta back on the sidelines on Sunday and taking part in his usual pre-match and post-match press conferences this week.