West Ham hit with huge fine for homophobic chanting by fans against Chelsea that was caught on video
WEST Ham have been hit with a £120,000 fine after homophobic chants by fans during the Prem defeat at Chelsea in February.
The Hammers were charged failing to control supporters in March for the 'mass chanting' of a number of visiting fans during the 62nd minute of the game at Stamford Bridge.
1
FA beaks added that the chants were of a discriminatory nature, with West Ham admitting responsibility within four days of the charge being laid.
Social media clips uploaded by traveling supporters were evidence of the concerted chants, lasting at least 40 seconds, directed at Chelsea players and fans.
The three member FA disciplinary commission ruled: 'The evidence suggests there was a very significant number of West Ham supporters involved in the homophobic chanting.
'It can properly be categorised as 'mass chanting'.
'This conclusion is supported by the fact that the post-match complaint was based on the chanting being clearly audible at the match and the video footage that depicts the chanting clearly and loudly by many West Ham supporters.
'The words used by the offending spectators referenced a negative attitude towards the LGBT+ community and a perceived association of that community with Chelsea FC. 30."
In his letter to the panel, West Ham club secretary Andrew Pincher conceded there was an 'obvious risk of such offending behaviour' from travelling fans.
Both clubs were criticised for failing to 'respond' to the homophobic chanting during the match.
This meant that 'none of the offending spectators were therefore identified, ejected and/or arrested for this behaviour'.
The commission also ruled that any measures the Hammers had taken beforehand 'were plainly not adequate to prevent such abuse and then to detect a wide range of culprits'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
32 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
HAMISH MCRAE: Rules are rules when it comes to trade... until all the major players ignore them
You cannot, Mr Bailey, get the toothpaste back into the tube. Last week the Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, gave a speech to investment managers in Dublin on how important world trade was to global growth and how the system had to be reformed. So far, so good. But when you go through the detail it was all about trying to rebuild trading relations with Europe and how to make the so-called 'rules based' world trade system work better. And the problem there is that the world has changed. The UK will not go back to anything like a pre-Brexit relationship with Europe, and the US will not go back to a pre-Trump approach to global trade. The task for British political and financial leaders is to exploit the opportunities that have arisen, rather than hark back to a none-too-brilliant past. On Brexit, the Governor was careful to make the disclaimer that as a public servant he didn't take a position on it, but what he said had a clear spin. We had to 'minimise negative effects on trade' and that the changing relationship with Europe has 'weighed on the level of potential supply'. At least he didn't cite the Office for National Statistics' calculation that in the long run Brexit would cost 4 per cent of national output. On that figure I prefer the comment of one of his predecessors, Mervyn King, arguably the most notable UK economist of his generation: 'They can't possibly know that. They just make it up.' Nor did Bailey refer to the determined drive by Europe to make banks shift their business and people to EU centres, including Dublin. Instead it was all about trade in finance being 'a two-way street', failing to mention that the UK has a huge surplus on exports of financial services, or indeed that there were 678,000 jobs in the City of London at the end of 2023, some 30 per cent more than in 2016. Of course we need as good a relationship as possible with all trading partners, but we need to acknowledge that, insofar as the City has been successful post-Brexit, it is despite hostility from Europe. As the still bubbling row about transferring euro-derivatives clearing from London to the EU shows, realistically that hostility will continue. On world trade the Governor acknowledged that the system has come under too much strain 'and it is incorrect to dismiss those who argue for restrictions on trade as just wrong-headed'. And the blame for imposing that strain goes mainly to China, which as he noted, heavily subsidised key industries to help them dominate world markets. China imposed 5,400 'subsidy policies' between 2009 and 2022, two-thirds of the global total. He made the point, too, that it was reasonable for countries to seek security of supply, but suggested they do so by dealing with reliable partners rather than trying to bring production back home. These are sensible comments, in particular acknowledging that Donald Trump has a point and China has abused global trading rules. He notes the damage done to trade by Covid and Russia's invasion of Ukraine. He points out how important trade in services is, particularly for the UK. It's an interesting, thoughtful and conventional analysis, and maybe that is what we should expect from a central banker – but I fear it is a naive one. Why? Take Europe. There is a huge trading imbalance between the UK and EU. They sell far more goods to us than they buy, and we export more services to them. But they are not going to change their rules to increase their imports of services. Take China. It's not going to stop subsidising its industries for fear of getting ticked off by the World Trade Organization. As for the US, it has given up on the whole International Monetary Fund-WTO system, that's that. So instead we have to negotiate our way through a bilateral trading world. The UK has made a good start. There are lots of reasons to attack our Government's financial policies, but doing deals with the US, the world's largest economy, and India, soon to be the third largest, deserves to be welcomed. We seem to have a slightly better relationship with Europe, and I don't see why we shouldn't get on with China. Let's try to be nice, as Andrew Bailey was in Dublin, but let's be aware that the rules-based order is dead.
The Sun
39 minutes ago
- The Sun
PSG 5 Inter Milan 0: Desire Doue steals show as Parisians rack up biggest EVER Champions League final win
DESIRE DOUE stole the show as PSG beat Inter Milan to win their first-ever Champions League. The French side ran rampant in tonight's final as they won 5-0 in Munich - the biggest scoreline in history. 2 But it was Doue who was the best player around as he scored twice and bagged an assist.
Daily Mail
39 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
RACHEL RICKARD STRAUS: I fear Labour is set to slap tough new rules on where you invest your Isa
It is all but certain that Chancellor Rachel Reeves will slash the amount that we can put in cash Isas. She has repeatedly refused to deny that she will – and industry sources suggest the most likely limit will be £4,000 of our total £20,000 tax-free allowance – the rest to be used only for investing. But details hiding in official savings figures that have until now been overlooked make me fear that far more Isa restrictions are on the cards. Here's why. Reeves has stated two motivations for meddling with Isas. The first is helping people to get a better return on their savings. Her theory is that if she restricts the amount we can save tax-free in cash we will invest instead (whether this strategy will work is debatable: it is more likely that we will just divert our cash into ordinary savings accounts). The second motivation is the one underlying all of Reeves's decisions: to help drive economic growth. This ambition will not be fulfilled simply by restricting cash Isa limits. Even if it leads to a wave of cash flooding into financial markets, only a small pool of it will go into UK companies. New investors are likely to put money into popular stocks – such as Nvidia, Meta and Apple – rather than favouring the UK. The UK makes up only 4 per cent of the global stock market, so an investor opting for a well-diversified portfolio would be unlikely to put much into this country. That's why, if Reeves wants to achieve her aims, she will have to force us to invest in assets that would boost UK growth. She may insist that a portion of stocks and shares Isas must be directed at UK companies. She made a similar demand of pension funds last week – and sources tell me this is being discussed for Isas as well. It wouldn't be the first time such an idea was mooted – the previous government considered something similar when it tried to launch a British Isa that savers could use to invest in UK companies. The next clue that Reeves will force – or incentivise – savers to invest part of their Isa allowance in the UK is in the Premium Bond figures. Premium Bonds hold so much of our cash that if encouraging us to invest more was her sole priority, she'd be slashing the amount we can put in them too. From a saver's point of view, Premium Bonds offer an even poorer return than cash Isas. At least in an Isa you earn interest. With Premium Bonds you're simply holding out for a prize. There are millions more holders of Premium Bonds than cash Isas – around 24 million versus just 14 million – and we hold a stonking £127.7 billion of cash in them. As many as 1.2 million savers hold the maximum permitted amount of £50,000 in Premium Bonds. No doubt plenty of that cash could be earning a better return if invested instead. If her priority was to get better returns for savers, she would slash that maximum. But, of course, she won't. Not just because it would be unpopular – that has not stopped her in the past. But because, unlike cash Isas, money saved in Premium Bonds does help drive economic growth. Premium Bonds are one of the products sold by NS&I to bring in billions for the Government for it to spend. It is a form of government borrowing – but one that doesn't appear on the books like other types of debt. Her willingness to overlook poor returns for savers in Premium Bonds shows where her priorities lie: economic growth first, savers' wealth second. The third clue lies in the official Isa figures from HMRC. They reveal that restricting the amount we can save in cash to encourage us to invest more will not work. Until 2015, Isa allowances were restricted just as Reeves is currently planning. You could only put a proportion of your Isa allowance in cash – the rest had to go in stocks and shares. If Reeves is right that savers need to have their cash Isa allowance curbed to get them to invest, you would expect that savers might have flocked to cash as soon as the rules were abolished in 2015. But they did not. In fact, when they were permitted to save as much of their allowance in cash as they liked, they chose to invest more. Before 2015, for every £10 going into a cash Isa, £4.10 went into a stocks and shares Isa. After 2015, for every £10 going into cash, £5.90 went into stocks and shares, analysis by investment platform XTB shows. The proportion going into stocks and shares has ballooned – we hold £431 billion in stocks and shares Isas, compared with £294 billion in cash Isas. So the Chancellor can't use the excuse that she needs to restrict cash Isas to get savers to buy more stocks and shares – they are already investing more. But that won't matter to her. The real motivation is to drive growth – and in this plan cash savers are merely a pawn. So what comes next? I fear the freedom to save and invest within our Isa however we choose is about to be clobbered on all fronts. Savers need to prepare for a regression back to 1999, before the Isa was even launched. Back then, savers were reliant on Personal Equity Plans. These were the predecessor of the Isa and offered tax-free investing but required you to put a proportion of your allowance into UK companies. That is where we're heading – back where we started, with our freedoms restricted, as if nothing had been learned.
