CAF crackdown after trouble in African club matches

An Esperance supporter clings to a railing at a Pretoria stadium during crowd violence after a CAF Champions League match against Mamelodi Sundowns on April 1. (PHILL MAGAKOE)
Esperance of Tunisia, Mamelodi Sundowns of South Africa and Mouloudia Alger of Algeria were the clubs hardest hit financially on Thursday after a crackdown by the CAF disciplinary board.
Esperance were fined $150,000 (€132,000), Mouloudia 140,000 and Sundowns 100,000 following incidents during and after CAF club competitions quarter-finals in April.
Advertisement
Inadequate security, inappropriate supporter behaviour, breaches of security and safety regulations and the throwing of smoke bombs and objects were among issues leading to fines.
A CAF statement included the use of laser pointers and pyrotechnics and a lack of ticket and crowd control as other causes.
Orlando Pirates of South Africa ($70,000), CS Constantine and USM Alger of Algeria (25,000 each), FAR Rabat of Morocco (20,000) and Pyramids of Egypt (15,000) were also punished.
Most incidents took place in the Champions League. The incidents involving Constantine and USM were in the second-tier Confederation Cup, the African equivalent of the Europa League.
Advertisement
Mouloudia assistant coach Mohamed Khazrouni was banned for four CAF matches and fined $15,000 after incidents following their match against Pirates in Soweto.
Algerian defender Abdelkader Menezla was hit with a two-match ban, one of which was suspended for one year.
Mouloudia, who lost 1-0 on aggregate to Pirates, must also play their next two CAF home matches behind closed doors.
Sundowns, Pirates and Pyramids will be involved in Champions League semi-finals in South Africa on Saturday and Constantine in a Confederation Cup semi-final in Morocco on Sunday.
dl/dmc

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

New York Times

18 minutes ago

• New York Times

Crystal Palace and Lyon in Europa League is a problem – but multi-club crackdown is too little too late

It's there in black and white. On the pitch and off it, football's rulebook can often be infuriatingly vague, but article 5.01 of UEFA's regulations for its club tournaments is pretty straightforward. 'No one,' it reads, 'may simultaneously be involved, either directly or indirectly, in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition.' Advertisement It goes on: 'No individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition' — by which it specifies 'holding a majority of the shareholders' voting rights' or 'being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club'. That is why Crystal Palace's dreams of competing in their first European campaign hang in the balance. The Premier League club's largest shareholder, Eagle Football Holdings, also owns the biggest stake in French club Lyon, who, like Palace, have qualified for next season's Europa League — and that creates a problem. And so it should. Why on earth should UEFA, European football's governing body, allow any two clubs under the same ownership or management structure to enter the same competition? Of course there should be rules to guard against such conflicts of interest and threats to integrity. Palace have spent the past couple of weeks quietly making their case to UEFA, pointing out that while John Textor of Eagle Football Holdings is indeed their largest shareholder, he has just 25 per cent of their voting rights. Indeed, in an interview with The Athletic in May last year, Textor found himself conceding that his vision of integrating Palace into his Eagle Football empire with Lyon, RWD Molenbeek (Belgium), Botafogo (Brazil) and FC Florida (United States) had proved unachievable because the south London club are effectively run by chairman Steve Parish. Palace's other investors have put pressure on Textor to sell Eagle's 43 per cent stake. Woody Johnson, owner of the NFL's New York Jets, has made an offer but is yet to meet his valuation. A consortium of sport and entertainment executives, which includes the NBA star Jimmy Butler, has also held discussions with Textor. It remains to be seen whether such a move would satisfy UEFA's club financial control body; the deadline for teams to make and register changes to their ownership structure, ahead of participation in the coming season's European competitions, passed on March 1. If Palace are expelled from the Europa League, they cannot drop into the third-tier Conference League because, summing up this whole tangled web, the Danish club Brondby have already qualified for that competition and are owned by Global Football Holdings, an investment vehicle led by Palace part-owner David Blitzer. And Brondby, like Lyon, would take precedence over Palace because UEFA's rules stipulate that in issues relating to multi-club ownership, priority is given to the team finishing in the highest position in their respective domestic leagues. Advertisement Sympathy will flow naturally for Palace if the UEFA decision goes against them. Everyone could see what winning the FA Cup last month meant to their supporters, the first major trophy success in their history, but it was also warmly welcomed by the wider football community because beating Manchester City in the final was an underdog triumph of the type that has become depressingly rare in the sport — not least in England, where trophies had appeared to become the preserve of a handful of rich, powerful clubs. Sympathy also flows naturally for Drogheda United, of the League of Ireland, who have already been excluded from next season's Conference League because of the possibility — only a one-in-15 chance in the second qualifying round — that it could have brought them into direct competition with Danish club Silkeborg, who are also under the ownership of the Alabama-based Trivela Group. Reading through Drogheda's statement last Monday after their appeal was rejected by the Court of Arbitration for Sport, you could not help but feel their anguish: a 'community-driven club… who fight every day to punch above their weight', who felt that a first European campaign in 12 years, by virtue of winning the FAI Cup for only the second time, would have been 'transformational… not just financially, but emotionally for our players, our staff, and our community'. But like it or not, there is still a conflict of interest — whether potential or actual — when two clubs in the same competition are operating under the same ownership. There are, as of last June, regulations to prevent it. And so there should be. What kind of governing body would UEFA be if there were not? The problem is that UEFA's belated clampdown on multi-club ownership goes nothing like far enough. It doesn't deter multi-club ownership at all. It just seeks to offer a semblance of compliance — a little window-dressing, really — where UEFA's competitions are concerned, as if the only issue with multi-club networks is the relatively small (but fast-growing) threat of teams under the same ownership playing each other, rather than the much more serious issues of them losing their sovereignty, losing their identity, losing their purpose. Advertisement UEFA's most recent benchmarking report, titled 'the European Club Finance and Investment Landscape', detailed that 105 top-flight sides across Europe are now part of a multi-club structure. That includes 15 in the Premier League, 11 in Italy's Serie A, 10 in Ligue 1 in France, nine in Spain's La Liga and six in the German Bundesliga. Some clubs have done very well out of multi-club ownership — perhaps most obviously RB Leipzig, Red Bull Salzburg and Girona — but as the phenomenon has grown, the success stories have come to be vastly outweighed by the number of historic names across Europe whose identity and ambitions have been sold to overseas investors (usually, but not always, from the United States) who regard them as little more than stocks in an investment portfolio. Some of those investors can at least claim to offer some level of expertise. Many do not. One of the fastest-growing multi-club networks in recent years was that of 777 Partners, which bought significant stakes in teams in Spain (Sevilla), Italy (Genoa), Belgium (Standard Liege), France (Red Star of Paris), Germany (Hertha Berlin), Australia (Melbourne Victory) and Brazil (Rio de Janeiro's Vasco da Gama). Shortly after it agreed a deal to buy Premier League side Everton — for which it failed to raise the necessary funds — the 777 Partners empire crumbled, plunging its entire stable of clubs into uncertainty or worse. As outlined in this column in 2023, there are so many reasons to be concerned by the rise of multi-club ownership and UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin's apparent ambivalence to the issue. As important as the sporting integrity question is — the idea that, for example, Palace could come up against Textor's Lyon in the Europa League — it is far less of an issue for the future of football than the existential threat multi-club ownership poses to teams, and indeed to entire leagues, if they serve as mere satellites to those at the top of the chain. But UEFA's long-awaited crackdown only addresses that single issue. It merely requires clubs to jump through a few hoops so that, on paper at least, the appearance of any conflict of interest is averted. Advertisement City Football Group, for example, was required to transfer its shares in Spanish side Girona to independent trustees as a temporary measure through a 'blind trust' structure, under UEFA supervision, to be cleared to play in last season's Champions League, because Manchester City were already in that competition. INEOS was required to do likewise with their shares in France's Nice to play in the Europa League, where they could have faced Manchester United, where INEOS chairman Sir Jim Ratcliffe owns a 28.9 per cent stake and has control over sporting matters. In the final weeks of last season, Nottingham Forest announced that Evangelos Marinakis had diluted his control of the club — placing his shares in a blind trust, submitting documents to Companies House in April to say he was no longer a 'person with significant control' of NF Football Investments Limited — to ensure that they would comply with UEFA regulations next season if they ended up in the same competition as his Greek team, Olympiacos. In the event, Olympiacos won the title, so will play in next season's Champions League, whereas Forest ended up in the Conference League. And so, on June 12, there was a filing at Companies House to report that Marinakis was a person with significant control at the City Ground once more. As for whether anything ever really changed beyond the paperwork, we can only take Forest's word for it. But it is worth noting that after Marinakis went onto the pitch to remonstrate with head coach Nuno Espirito Santo after the 2-2 draw with Leicester City on May 11, the club issued a statement in praise of 'our owner' and extolling the strength of 'his leadership, not just through words, but through action and presence'. Please excuse the tangent. The point is simply to underline that, even with his shares placed in a blind trust, Marinakis appeared to be more hands-on at Forest than your typical long-distance Premier League owner would be — more involved than Textor at Palace, certainly. But because this essentially comes down to paperwork, a box had been ticked. Why or how Palace and Drogheda failed to jump through those particular hoops by March 1, only they know. Palace could easily claim that multi-club ownership is so far off their agenda that it did not cross their mind back in March — European qualification likewise, perhaps — but when they have not one but two significant investors with controlling interests in other teams, it looks like a serious oversight. As for Drogheda, they won the FAI Cup last November, so surely they had ample time to ensure compliance. Advertisement That emotionally-wrought club statement last week mentioned 'months of engagement, constructive dialogue, countless hours of legal preparation, and multiple proposals based on frameworks that have been accepted in the past' but said that ultimately the club had 'come up short'. Whatever their frustration, the club — and they appeared to be talking for their owners here — said, 'We accept responsibility and we're sorry.' It is genuinely a sad situation. When you think of the various abuses, loopholes and suspicious activities that multi-club ownership allows, no one would suggest that Drogheda (or indeed Palace) are anywhere near the crux of the problem. Drogheda's is a regulatory failure of the type that the big beasts of European football would never make. Or if they did, they would have enough weight behind them — in terms of power, finance and legal backing — to give them every chance of finding a way around it. But none of these blind trusts or cosmetic reshuffles come close to addressing the issue in a meaningful way. The further and deeper the tentacles of multi-club ownership spread, the closer we come to a scenario where, in future, football could be dominated by a handful of rival networks who own the biggest teams in every league on every continent — and whether those networks are owned by energy-drink manufacturers, venture capitalists or sovereign wealth funds, whether or not those sides are temporarily placed into blind trusts for appearances sake, it is a nightmarish vision for a sport whose popularity since the 19th century has been based on the very simple and very appealing principle that clubs exist simply to represent their community. The football authorities have never shown the slightest appetite to tackle the multi-club issue, and it somehow feels entirely typical that the crackdown centres on paperwork. Should two clubs under even partial control of the same individual or entity be allowed to compete in the same competition? No, they should not. But when it comes to addressing the issue of multi-club ownership, excluding clubs like Drogheda and Palace would achieve nothing except to underline the importance of getting the paperwork right.

Yahoo

9 hours ago

• Yahoo

Cambiaso confesses January talks with Manchester City but insists ‘happy at Juventus'

Juventus wing-back Andrea Cambiaso has revealed he spoke to Manchester City in January but insists he is 'truly happy' to be playing for the Bianconeri. Cambiaso was interviewed by the Gazzetta dello Sport and discussed the rumours linking him with the Premier League giants. Advertisement When asked about Manchester City, the wing-back said 'Let's say they have almost unlimited financial resources — their ownership is incredibly wealthy — so I'm not surprised they've already spent so much on the transfer market. In January, it was nice just to talk, but I'm happy to be here and to wear this shirt. I was never really close anyway — it was nice and flattering to be linked with clubs like that, but I'll say it again: I'm truly happy to be playing here.' LECCE, ITALY – DECEMBER 01: Kialonda Gaspar of Lecce competes for the ball with Andrea Cambiaso of Juventus during the Serie A match between Lecce and Juventus at Stadio Via del Mare on December 01, 2024 in Lecce, Italy. (Photo by) Cambiaso shines at Juventus Cambiaso, who signed for Juventus from Genoa in 2022, had an impressive campaign with the Old Lady in the 2024-25 season – scoring twice and assisting four times in 33 appearances in Serie A. The wing-back also made seven appearances in the Champions League and has emerged as one of the Bianconeri's most exciting players. Advertisement The 25-year-old has four years left on his deal, after signing a 5-year-contract last May. After spending the 2022-23 campaign on loan with Bologna, Cambiaso has only missed nine Serie A matches in the last two seasons. TURIN, ITALY – JANUARY 18: Andrea Cambiaso of Juventus runs with the ball under pressure from Youssouf Fofana of AC Milan during the Serie A match between Juventus and AC Milan at Allianz Stadium on January 18, 2025 in Turin, Italy. (Photo by) Cambiaso has started both of Juventus' Club World Cup games so far and will hope to continue contributing positively to head coach Igor Tudor's set-up.

Miami Herald

11 hours ago

• Miami Herald

Club World Cup: European dominance tested, Inter Miami on verge of Round of 16

European teams entered the Club World Cup as heavy favorites, with good reason, as their leagues are the most prestigious, generally pay much higher salaries, and the best players in the rest of the world flock there or dream of playing there. The assumption among most fans and pundits was that the European teams would coast through the group stage with many lopsided scorelines. And yet, here is Inter Miami, a nascent MLS team, on the verge of advancing to the Round of 16 heading into Monday's game against Brazilian great Palmeiras on Monday night at Hard Rock Stadium. Palmeiras and Miami lead Group A, while 30-time Portuguese champion Porto, which lost 2-1 to Miami, is in danger of elimination in third place. Inter Miami can advance with a win, a tie, and even a loss if Al Ahly fails to beat Porto. Meanwhile, Brazil's Botafogo stunned Champions League winner Paris Saint-Germain 1-0 at the Rose Bowl to take the lead in Group B, Brazilian club Flamengo leads England's Chelsea in Group D, Argentina's River Plate sits atop Group E ahead of Champions League finalist Inter Milan of Italy, and Brazil's Fluminense leads Group F ahead of German giant Borussia Dortmund. As of Sunday, through 17 matches between European teams and the rest of the world, European teams had won nine, tied five and lost three. Among the surprising scorelines: Saudi team Al Hilal tied Real Madrid 1-1, Mexico's Monterrey tied Inter Milan 1-1, and Flamengo beat Chelsea 3-1. The first-week results of this $1 billion tournament have sparked interesting questions and debates among soccer followers from Cairo to California, from Berlin to Buenos Aires, from Rio to Rome. Does Europe still reign supreme over the rest of the world or is the gap closing? Did the timing of the tournament favor non-European clubs who are in mid-season form? Are South American clubs exceeding expectations because they have more to prove and, therefore, they and their fans care more about winning this trophy than their European counterparts? Argentine clubs Boca Juniors and River Plate have drawn huge, passionate crowds that serenade their heroes before, during and after matches. Brazil's Palmeiras, Flamengo, Botafogo and Fluminense bring the same party spirit everywhere they go. 'In the newspapers they were saying this team is going to win easily, and it's not like that, the sport has changed a lot,' said Inter Miami defender Maxi Falcon, a native of Uruguay. 'Any team these days that is organized can physically fit can beat you. A lot of people are surprised by these results, but I'm not. I have seen the change for years. 'Here, you've seen the European teams hugging and celebrating when they score winning goals because they are being challenged. I was commenting to my friends and family that the Europeans have a different style of playing, and we have that passion for football that you can feel in the stands, too, from the fans. So, you put one style against the other in a highly competitive tournament, and people predict that a European team will win. And they might, but it won't be easy.' Bayern Munich coach Vincent Kompany and his players would agree after needing an 84th minute goal to overcome Boca Juniors and its legendary fans at a sold-out Hard Rock Stadium on Friday night. 'Whoever is saying European teams would roll over other teams is not at this tournament,' Kompany said. 'Anybody who has knowledge of the game knows how tough it is to play against South American teams. And nearly every game for the European teams is like an away game. The conditions are much closer to South American conditions than our conditions. And, they have good players. The European leagues have been filled with South American players, so I'm not surprised. Most importantly is to match their hunger to win these games and this tournament.' England captain Harry Kane, who scored one of the goals in Bayern's 2-1 win over Boca, agreed. 'It felt like an away game out there for sure, their fans were really loud, it was a great experience to play in front of, to be honest,' said Kane. 'That's what makes the win even more special because it feels like a good away win. You've seen already the South American teams have caused big problems for the European was an incredible atmosphere, one of the best in my career, for sure.' Inter Miami left back Jordi Alba, who played most his career at FC Barcelona, echoed Falcon's sentiments that this tournament has proven that teams such as Miami can pull off surprises. 'Anything can happen in football,' Alba said Sunday morning before training. 'There are always favorites and debates from people on the outside. But those of us who play know that until the final whistle, anything can happen, and that is showing in this Club World Cup.' How to Watch Inter Miami vs. Palmeiras The Inter Miami match against Palmeiras kicks off at 9 p.m. Monday at Hard Rock Stadium. Fans can watch on TBS, truTV and Tickets are available at