Sweet FA | Vital Football

Sweet FA

Niqlous

Vital Reserves Team
'On August 1st, the FA fined Millwall £10,000 for their supporters’ racist chanting.

Today, the FA fined Huddersfield Town £50,000 for wearing a fake shirt in a pre-season friendly. You couldn’t make this shirt up.'

How can it be a chargeable offence to wear a 'fake shirt' in preseason??

*The less said about the Millwall incident the better
 
'On August 1st, the FA fined Millwall £10,000 for their supporters’ racist chanting.

Today, the FA fined Huddersfield Town £50,000 for wearing a fake shirt in a pre-season friendly. You couldn’t make this shirt up.'

How can it be a chargeable offence to wear a 'fake shirt' in preseason??

*The less said about the Millwall incident the better

How much they get fined for playing a fake team we beat them!
 
'On August 1st, the FA fined Millwall £10,000 for their supporters’ racist chanting.

Today, the FA fined Huddersfield Town £50,000 for wearing a fake shirt in a pre-season friendly. You couldn’t make this shirt up.'

How can it be a chargeable offence to wear a 'fake shirt' in preseason??

*The less said about the Millwall incident the better

I had missed this- it simply reinforces the view the game fails to take racism seriously
 
It does seem counter intuitive to say the least. The only possible explanation is that the shirt offence was deliberate choice by the club, the fans chanting is something they can influence (through creating the right environment) but ultimately have no direct control over. Even so, the chanting is much more serious an offence (you would think) and therefore you would expect the punishment to be increased accordingly. If it was a group rather than an individual just make them play a game behind closed doors. That way they get the fine and the 'fans' get the message.
 
The shirts were auctioned and raised £30,000 for charity.
The FA hardly in the spirit of things here. If the shirts are not offensive who really cares in a friendly?
 
The shirts were offensive because of the way they allowed worldwide publicity to the betting company who persuaded Huddersfield to deliberately flout the rules on logo sizes. Not a trivial offence in the light of the number of deaths such companies are responsible for.
 
To be fair to Milwall it is a first offence. I mean it’s not like Milwall has had any history of racially aggravated violence over the years. They’re not known as the ‘Darling little lovelies of South London’ for nothing. I am sure this is a one off and no one linked to Milwall will ever do anything naughty ever again. As for shirt wearing, that has become insidious in the game and needs to be stamped out. Well done to the FA I say.
 
The shirts were offensive because of the way they allowed worldwide publicity to the betting company who persuaded Huddersfield to deliberately flout the rules on logo sizes. Not a trivial offence in the light of the number of deaths such companies are responsible for.

Take your point and would reduce/remove gambling ads, but meanwhile even larger SkyBet logos are everywhere in EFL grounds.
 
Bendtner got fined £50K(?) for wearing showing off some betting company boxers the other year didn't he?

Then in the same week, an Italian Club got fined about £5k for their usual racial abuse (which Inter fans now inform us is a compliment...!).
 
Have PP paid the fine for Huddersfield? If not they bloody well should, they have had far more publicity than if nothing had been said about it.
 
You’ve hit the nail on the head there - Udders’ problem is that it was the wrong type of gambling advert, i.e. one not endorsed by the EFL.

Realised at the Everton cup game how much they can get in people's heads. My 14-year old took his seat and his first words were "Why haven't they got the SkyBet adverts out?".
I don't think he's likely to start gambling anytime soon, but will see a lot of ads on the internet and will link them to what he sees at the football associated with the club/the league.