Plymouth’s relegation from the Championship was mocked by a Sheffield United player as the FA release written reasons regarding the incident.
An independent Regulatory Commission has sanctioned Plymouth Argyle and Sheffield United for the mass confrontation at their EFL Championship fixture on Saturday 12 April.
It was alleged that Plymouth Argyle and Sheffield United failed to ensure their players and/or technical area staff did not behave in an improper and/or provocative way around the tunnel area after the final whistle.
The clubs accepted the charges against them, and the Regulatory Commission imposed a £180,000 fine on Sheffield United and a £7,500 fine on Plymouth Argyle. The written reasons for these decisions can be read below.
Ugly scenes as Sheffield United boss Chris Wilder clashes with Plymouth players in the tunnel
WRITTEN REASONS ON THE INCIDENT:
Overview
1. These are the written reasons for the decision and sanction in relation to a Regulatory Commission hearing that took place on 8 May 2025 concerning a consolidated case relating to Plymouth Argyle FC (“PAFC”) and Sheffield United (“SUFC”).
2. The Regulatory Commission comprised of Elliott Kenton who acted as Chair, Daniel Mole and Matt Wild (the “Commission”).
The Charge
3. PAFC and SUFC have each been charged by the Football Association (hereafter the “FA”) for breaching the following FA Rules:
(a) FA Rule E20.1– Failed to Ensure its Players conducted themselves in an orderly fashion (the “Charges”).
4. The full excerpt of these Rules are reproduced below:
Each Affiliated Association, Competition and Club shall be responsible for ensuring that its Directors, players, officials, employees, servants and representatives, attending any Match do
not:
E20.1 behave in a way that is improper, offensive, violent, threatening, abusive, indecent, insulting or provocative.
5. The Charges relates to a mass confrontation which took place in the tunnel following the fixture.
6. This case has been designated as a Mass Confrontation (Fast Track 2) in accordance with the FA Fast Track Regulations (at p 246-251 of the FA Handbook 2024/25).
7. This case has been designated by the FA as a Non-Standard Case for both PAFC and SUFC due to the involvement of technical area staff and / or security staff, and also the proven breaches incurred by both clubs in relation to FA Rule E20.
8. PAFC and SUFC have accepted the Charges and elected a non-personal hearing for the Commission to consider sanction on the papers alone.
The Evidence
9. This matter relates to a Championship fixture between PAFC and SUFC which took place on 12 April 2025.
10. The Commission have a comprehensive bundle with representations on sanction from both PAFC and SUFC. They have also been assisted by way of video evidence including bodycam footage from inside the tunnel, where the mass confrontation took place.
11. The relevant factual background herein is a summary of the principal submissions provided to the Commission. It does not purport to contain reference to all the points made, or to all the statements and information provided, however the absence in these reasons of any particular point, or submission, should not imply that the Commission did not take such point, or submission, into consideration when it determined the matter. For the avoidance of doubt, the Commission has carefully considered all the evidence and materials furnished in this case.
PAFC
12. In response to the Charges, PAFC provided a letter of response to The FA on 29 April 2025 via the club secretary, Zac Newton and the Commission have included some key extracts relating to their submissions on culpability:
“By way of relevant context, the Match was particularly important to SUFC given that they were only two points from the top of the Championship and the automatic promotion places. A win at this stage of the season would have been vital, particularly as they were effectively competing in a “three-horse race” for two automatic promotion places and SUFC needed to keep pace with the two teams ahead of it. The Match was also very important to the Club, but for different reasons, as it continued to fight against the increasingly likely prospect of relegation in circumstances where the Club was six points from safety prior to the Match.
Usually, once a match has concluded, an away team will briefly thank their travelling fans and then exit the pitch quickly (particularly after suffering a defeat). However, on this occasion, SUFC manager, Chris Wilder (‘CW’) made the unusual decision to conduct a lengthy debrief in the centre of the pitch involving all of the SUFC players and a number of the SUFC coaching staff.
As both sets of players left the field, there was a brief altercation involving the Club’s number 15 (Mustapha Bundu – ‘MB’) and SUFC’s number 18 (Harrison Thomas Clarke – ‘HTC’) lasting a matter of seconds. As set out in his observations, MB saw HTC “having a go at” the Club’s Head of Athletic Performance (Eddie Lattimore – ‘EL’). After MB questioned why HTC was having a go at EL, HTC then mocked the Club’s league position by saying “enjoy League One next year.” Another SUFC player then pushed MB and the Club’s number 18 (Darko Gyabi – ‘DG’) led MB away to continue celebrating as they leave the pitch.
As MB and DG continued towards the tunnel, CW was also heading towards the tunnel.
However, the video footage clearly shows that CW decided to stop heading towards the tunnel and instead turned in the opposite direction to confront MB and DG. CW then proceeded to deliberately impede their exit from the pitch and put his face very close to MB’s face in an overtly aggressive manner. DG gently raised his arm to divert MB and to prevent CW getting closer to MB and then all three individuals headed to the tunnel.
The Club submits that a senior member of SUFC such as CW should have not conducted himself in the manner in which he did, i.e. by confronting two opposition players whilst they celebrated a victory. Club managers are expected to lead by example and the manner in which CW acted in front of the fans and players only exacerbated any tensions that may have been present following the conclusion of the Match.
The tunnel area at Home Park is narrow/tight, and as a result of SUFC’s unusual decision to remain on the pitch after the full-time whistle instead of quickly heading to their changing room (as would be expected after an away loss), it was even more congested than usual. With SUFC already disappointed by the late defeat and following CW’s decision to confront MB and DG, tensions had been raised, and some players began pushing each other in the tunnel.
12.1 PAFC also raise the following general points of mitigation:
“The Incident in the tunnel only lasted a couple of minutes and consisted mainly of some pushing and shoving. The Club’s security team managed to quickly form a cordon which separated the respective teams’ players/staff and brought the Incident to a swift conclusion.
The Regulatory Commission is requested to note that the Club regrets that the Incident occurred and wishes to apologise to The FA and the Regulatory Commission. The Club has spoken to its players and reminded them of their responsibilities as professional footballers and as representatives of the Club. The Club’s Manager, Mr Miron Muslić, has also reiterated this message to the players.
Further, the Club has admitted the Charge at the earliest possible opportunity and, as set out above, has apologised for the conduct of its players in this instance.” 12.2 In relation to sanction, PAFC submit:
“In light of the specific facts of this case and the significant mitigation set out above, the Club requests the Regulatory Commission to take a reasonable approach in the circumstances and issue a warning, or alternatively, impose a fine no more than Standard Penalty 1 (i.e. £5,000) which the Regulatory Commission has full discretion to impose.”
SUFC
13. In response to the Charges, SUFC have provided submissions by way of a letter dated 30 April 2025 from SUFC’s CEO, Mr Stephen Bettis, along with accompanying witness statements supporting the response.
The Commission summarise the key extracts of the 30 April letter below:
“As confirmed by Chris Wilder, the match had been played in a positive and competitive manner with both teams at either end of the table striving for very different outcomes. Having been in the lead from the end of the first half it was obviously very disappointing to all involved from this Club to concede two late goals to lose the match 2-1. Emotions were running high for both teams at the end of the match; it was our third loss in a week and it was a huge win for Plymouth. Chris spoke to the players on the pitch at the end of the game, something he has done on a number of occasions before this season and in previous seasons, and as he was leaving the pitch he saw what appeared to be two Plymouth players celebrating in front of the away supporters and went over to speak to them. Matt Duke confirms in his statement (and it can be seen on the CCTV footage) that there had already been words between one of those players and some of our team.
Mr Newton’s statement at paragraph 9 also mentioned that Plymouth’s players Bundu and Gyabi were celebrating together as they headed towards the tunnel, which is confirmed by Plymouth’s Safety Officer. Their route took them directly in front of the away supporters. This is clearly what Chris saw when he approached those players. This was mentioned by the Sky Sports studio team as well as in media reports after the match.
I have reviewed the footage supplied in respect of the pushing and shoving which took place in the tunnel. As mentioned above, the post-match atmosphere was one of jubilation for Plymouth and massive disappointment for the Club’s players who then came into close proximity with each other in a very confirmed area further to Plymouth’s players celebrating on the pitch close to our supporters.”
14. SUFC have also referred in their submissions to their previous disciplinary history involving a number of proven E20 charges. In their 30 April 2025 letter, they state:
“In my last letter to The FA further to the Club’s charge against Bristol City, I outlined the measures that the Club was taking and will take in the future to try to address the behaviour which has led to the high number of recent charges of this nature.
I can confirm that Kevin Friend came in to the Club speak to the players on Monday 31 March and spoke to them about their reactions towards the decisions of match officials and to manage this element of the game better. At the time of the Bristol City charge the Club also requested assistance from the Regulatory Commission and/or The Football Association in terms of suggestions which it may have to help us address the ongoing issue. The Club is serious about resolving it and wishes to take steps to do so and again requests further assistance and advice in this respect”.
The FA
14.1 The FA have provided submissions on the mitigation provided by PAFC and SUFC to assist the Commission in this matter.
14.2 In relation to PAFC, The FA submit:
“4.2 The FA makes the following observations with regard to the mitigation raised on PAFC’s behalf and reflect the Club’s presentation of such matters:
4.2.1. Match Content: The FA does not accept that the context of the match for both PAFC and SUFC as likely having a significant bearing on their final league positions acts as mitigation. The nature of football, and particularly the extremely competitive nature of the EFL Championship, does not provide Club’s with an excuse or justification to fail to ensure their players and staff do not act improperly or provocatively.
4.2.2. SUFC players’ roles in instigating and restarting the Incident: Whilst The FA agree that conducting a team talk on the field of play after the fixture had ended may be unusual, it is not considered to be improper or provocative. It appears to be an unfortunate coincidence that both sets of players began to leave the field of play at the same time.
4.2.3. Duration of the Incident: The FA accept that the incident only lasted a couple of minutes and did not appear to involve conduct that could be considered violent.
4.2.4. The Club’s apology and early admission of the Charge: The FA note the Club’s apology and reference to the reminder to players as to standards of behaviour. The Club will of course be entitled to appropriate credit for the timely admission.”
14.3 In relation to SUFC, The FA submit:
5.2. The FA make the following observations as to the submissions and evidence provided:
5.2.1. […] the FA do not consider the match context as mitigation, or the fact CW held a team talk on the field of play to have been improper.
5.2.2. The FA is unable to comment on the verbal exchange between SUFC players and MB, however it is noted that a SUFC player pushes MB during this exchange which appears to be the first display of physical confrontation at the conclusion of the fixture.
5.2.3. The suggestion that MB and DG were celebrating in front of the away fans in a way that was “inflammatory”, is not borne out on the footage in The FA’s view. As set out above, it appears DG removes MB from the confrontation with an SUFC player and towards the tunnel area. In doing so, they necessarily pass the SUFC supporters.
5.2.4. Plainly, CW’s perception of MB and DG’s actions was such that he felt it necessary to intervene. The FA do not consider it was necessary for CW to approach MB and DG in the manner in which he did so. The perception of his own players and staff, and PAFC players and staff, of the confrontational nature of the interaction, was such that it appeared to encourage them to gather quickly behind CW and begin the mass confrontation.
5.2.5. As set out above, The FA accept that the actions of players and staff did not include violent conduct, hence its exclusion from the particulars of the Charge.
14.4 The FA make the following submissions in relation to sanction:
7.1 The Regulatory Commission must assess the gravity of the breaches and parties’ respective levels of culpability. Whilst PAFC and SUFC may seek to apportion greater fault to the other or those in the other’s control, circumstances arose in which each Club had the responsibility to ensure its players and technical area occupants did not react contrary to FA Rule E20.1. In this instance, both Clubs failed in that responsibility.
7.2. In assessing the appropriate sanction, the Commission will consider the aggravating and mitigating features of the misconduct and as presented by the Clubs
7.3. The FA consider the following features to aggravate the Misconduct as a whole in respect of both Clubs:
7.3.1. Involvement of technical area occupants, and in PAFC’s case security staff.
7.3.2. Volume of individuals involved.
7.3.3. The confined space in which the majority of the confrontation appears to have occurred, resulting in a significantly hostile situation.
7.3.4. The initial confrontation was broadcast on Sky as part of the coverage of the fixture.
7.4. Likewise in respect of mitigation, The FA identify the following feature applicable to both Clubs:
7.4.1. Admission at the earliest opportunity for which appropriate credit should be awarded.
14.5 In relation to PAFC, The FA state:
“8.1. In addition to the mitigation at 7.4, PAFC have condoned the behaviour of its Participants and provided an apology both to The FA and the Commission.
8.2. That being said, given the general aggravating features and the single previous breach, The FA are of the view that a financial penalty in excess of the Standard Penalty is necessary and proportionate to properly mark the Misconduct, subject to appropriate credit for their admission. In this regard, PAFC are liable for a maximum fine of £50,000.”
14.6 In relation to SUFC, The FA state:
14.7 “9.1. It is of great concern that SUFC has committed its sixth Non-Standard breach of FA Rule E20 since the start of the season and is now liable to a maximum fine of £300,000. The proximity of the breaches is a significant aggravating feature of the misconduct and any sanction in respect of this matter must reflect that. Plainly, the previous sanctions have done little to deter the Club from further breaches.
9.2. it is concerning that the Club have been unable to improve its control over players and staff following the previous five breaches this season. Plainly, reminders from various sources as to the expected standards of behaviour have proven insufficient to affect change in the Participant’s behaviour. The Club must demonstrate a robust response to addressing the incredibly poor period of behaviour by its Participant’s.
9.3. The FA submit that only a significant financial penalty can properly reflect the present misconduct in the context of the previous five breaches since August 2024, subject to credit for the admission of the Charge.
Discussion and Decision on Sanction
15. From the outset, the Commission reminded themselves of the documentary evidence before them and watched the various videos of the conclusion of the fixture and the mass confrontation itself.
16. The Commission considered this was a serious mass confrontation, by virtue of the large number of participants involved and its location within a narrow tunnel. Had this mass confrontation escalated to violent conduct, it would have been difficult to disperse compared to an on-field incident.
17. The Commission considered the roles of both PAFC and SUFC in the lead up and during the mass confrontation. The Commission noted that PAFC in their submissions have stated that SUFC had a higher degree of culpability than they did, due to the actions of the SUFC manager, Chris Wilder.
18. They point to three actions of Mr Wilder that contributed to the mass confrontation:
(a) Mr Wilder was undertaking an on field debrief which was unusual and provocative.
(b) Mr Wilder approached two PAFC players, MB and DG when they were celebrating and was overtly aggressive; and
(c) Mr Wilder was aggressive in the tunnel.
19. The Commission note that whilst it is unusual for a protracted on-field debrief, Mr Wilder’s actions cannot be considered as unduly provocative. However, the Commission did find from the video evidence that Mr Wilder did act provocatively with the PAFC players, MB and DG who were simply celebrating their win. The Commission considered that Mr Wilder’s actions contributed to increased tension between the players in the lead up to the mass confrontation and was unnecessary.
20. In relation to the mass confrontation itself, the Commission did not find that any one side were more culpable than the other and did not make any finding in relation to Mr Wilder’s conduct in the tunnel. The Commission considered that there were a large number of players involved, but the mass confrontation itself was relatively short, and was non-violent.
21. Turning to sanction, the Commission considered the position of PAFC first. They considered a starting point for sanction, before considering the aggravating features in this case to include the large number of players involved, and their previous E20 breaches for the current season and five preceding season which were as follows:
(a) Stoke City FC- Championship-20/4/2024- £5,000 fine
(b) Bolton Wanderers FC- EFL League 1- 07/01/2023-£2,500 fine
(c) Lincoln City FC- EFL League 1- 02/10/2021- £2,500 fine
22. The Commission applied an upward adjustment to sanction in light of the aggravating features. The Commission then considered PAFC’s mitigation, including acceptance of the Charges at first opportunity, their cooperation with The FA’s investigation and their remorse, and applied a downward adjustment to the sanction based on those mitigating factors.
23. Accordingly, the Commission imposed a fine of £7,500 on PAFC.
24. The Commission then considered SUFC’s sanction. They considered a starting point for sanction, before considering the aggravating features. This includes SUFC’s significant disciplinary history which includes 7 proven E20 breaches for the current season and five preceding seasons. This included 5 non-standard breaches since the start of the season. The breaches are as follows;
(a) Norwich City FC- Championship-22/10/2022-£7,500
(b) Bristol City FC-Championship-01/11/2022- £15,000
(c) Wrexham AFC-13/08/2024-£8,500
(d) Watford FC-01/09/2024- £17,000
(e) Portsmouth FC- 28/09/2024- £40,000
(f) Coventry City FC- 23/11/2024- £80,000
(g) Bristol City FC-11/03/2025-£120,000
25. The Commission found this very concerning and significantly aggravating, with previous
penalties applied having little effect on changing behaviours within the club. The Commission
also considered a significant aggravating feature was Mr Wilder’s conduct, which the Commission considers was provocative and a contributory cause of the mass confrontation.
The Commission accordingly applied a significant upward adjustment to the starting point.
26. The Commission then considered mitigating factors. The Commission considered the acceptance at first opportunity, cooperation with The FA’s investigation and apology were all to be credited in mitigation and applied a downward adjustment.
27. Accordingly, the Commission imposed a fine of £180,000 on SUFC.
Final Orders
28. The Commission order the following:
28.1 A financial penalty of £7,500 is payable by PAFC;
28.2 A financial penalty of £180,000 is payable by SUFC;
28.3 There is no order as to costs.
29. There is a right to appeal this decision in accordance with the FA Appeal Regulations.
Elliott Kenton (Chair) on behalf of the FA Regulatory Commission
The post Plymouth’s relegation mocked by Sheffield United player – FA release written reasons statement appeared first on Fan Banter.
