Miguel Braga criticized the Disciplinary Board of the Portuguese Football Federation and its «deafening silence» regarding FC Porto-Sporting on 11 February «and the aggressions against leonine players by elements foreign to the game sheet at the end of FC Porto-Sporting. Sporting».
In an editorial published in the club’s newspaper this Thursday, Sporting’s director of communication recalled several reports of that game in the press to talk about «76 days of silence.
Here’s the editorial:
«We are approaching May and the Disciplinary Council of the Portuguese Football Federation maintains its deafening silence, on the aggressions against Leonine players by elements foreign to the game sheet at the end of FC Porto-Sporting CP, played on the 11th of February.
Recalling what was written at the time: according to the Observer, the “end of the game at Estádio do Dragão had a film such as had not been seen for a long time” and that those who were present saw “the worst that football can have”. Still on the events, “several security guards and assistants from the sports venue were also involved in the confusion. One threw water at Matheus Reis; another will have even attacked the Brazilian dos Leãos. It is also visible that on two occasions there were security guards who also prevented fans from entering the pitch”.
For A Bola, it was “possible to visualize a person with a red vest pushing Gonçalo Inácio in an intimidating way, followed by new pushes, this time with Matheus Reis. It should be remembered that the Brazilian defender was also attacked by two other elements outside the game, who were beyond the advertising board, wearing a blue vest”. Version confirmed in Record: “One, two, three: Images show that Matheus Reis was attacked three times at the end of FC Porto-Sporting CP”.
Days after the infamous game, Rádio Renascença reported on the referee’s report, stating that João Pinheiro details that, “after the end of the game, three elements wearing a blue vest hit the player (…) that same player with a punch in the back”. More. That “an element wearing a blue vest and who was behind the electronic scoreboards next to the north goal, threw a bench into the field of play”.
Images, videos and descriptions are available to anyone with just a click away. In addition, there is a presumption of veracity of the referee’s report that seems to have been forgotten by those who should discipline offenders in our football.
Curious, it was to realize that the FPF also proclaims the duality of criteria. As far as it was possible to search on the website of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (TAD), since 2020 and until today, Pepe will have been the only player who requested injunction and in relation to which the FPF did not oppose – the FPF had a different understanding in the cases by Lucas Piazón (2021) and Luís Neto (2020), just to give two examples.
It would therefore be useful to know why the FPF understood not to oppose Pepe’s request, which did not occur in the cases of Neto or Piazón. In this case with Dantesque contours, it would also be good if the FPF could clarify why its Disciplinary Board considered there was a need to preventively suspend Pepe and Luís Gonçalves, but then, when they ask not to comply with the punishment that is applied, the FPF has nothing to oppose, accepting that they will be present in the next game. Doubts to be clarified perhaps one day. Perhaps.”
–
