CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10574 — Sportsklubben Brann v. Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)

"Brann v. UEFA" · CAS majority overturned UEFA's EUR 5,000 fine on Brann for supporters chanting 'UEFA MAFIA', finding no breach of Article 16(2)(e) DR.

Award date	Award with grounds notified on 31 March 2025
Panel	President: Dr Leanne O'Leary (Solicitor, Liverpool, UK); Arbitrators: Mr Eirik Monsen (Attorney-at-law, Oslo, Norway) and Mr Massimo Coccia (Professor and Attorney-at-law, Rome, Italy)
Outcome	Brann won; the UEFA Appeals Body decision of 25 March 2024 was set aside in its entirety and the EUR 5,000 fine was annulled.
Provisions	Art. 16(2)(e) UEFA Disciplinary Regulations (2022 edition) Art. 16(1) UEFA Disciplinary Regulations Art. 14 UEFA Disciplinary Regulations Art. 23 UEFA Disciplinary Regulations Art. 24(2) UEFA Disciplinary Regulations Art. 25(1)(c) UEFA Disciplinary Regulations Art. 6(5) UEFA Disciplinary Regulations Annex A(I) UEFA Disciplinary Regulations Art. 30(3)(b) UEFA Disciplinary Regulations Art. 30(4) UEFA Disciplinary Regulations Art. 10 European Convention on Human Rights Art. 62.1 UEFA Statutes (2021 edition) Art. 62.3 UEFA Statutes (2021 edition) Art. 62.4 UEFA Statutes (2021 edition) Art. R47 CAS Code Art. R48 CAS Code Art. R49 CAS Code Art. R51 CAS Code Art. R54 CAS Code Art. R55 CAS Code Art. R56 CAS Code Art. R57 CAS Code Art. R58 CAS Code Art. R65.3 CAS Code Art. 260ter Swiss Criminal Code

What happened in Brann v. UEFA

During a UEFA Women's Champions League 2023/2024 match on 31 January 2024, a group of Sportsklubben Brann supporters chanted 'UEFA MAFIA' for approximately 20 seconds in response to a referee decision. UEFA's Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body (CEDB) fined Brann EUR 5,000 for breaching Article 16(2)(e) of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations, which prohibits provocative messages of an offensive nature unfit for a sports event. The UEFA Appeals Body upheld the fine on 25 March 2024, also ordering Brann to pay EUR 1,000 in costs. Brann appealed to CAS, arguing the chant was a spontaneous, satirical expression of frustration protected by freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR, and that UEFA, as a powerful legal entity, must tolerate wider criticism. The CAS majority applied the 'reasonable onlooker' test, finding that in context — a short, isolated 20-second chant triggered by a refereeing decision, during a match the delegate described as having an 'excellent' atmosphere — the chant conveyed the second dictionary meaning of 'mafia' (a tight-knit controlling group) rather than an accusation of criminality, and did not constitute a provocative message threatening public order within the scope of Article 16(2)(e) DR. The appeal was upheld and the Appealed Decision set aside. The case matters because it is the first CAS ruling to scrutinise the 'UEFA MAFIA' chant under the reasonable onlooker test and to distinguish context-dependent meaning from a blanket prohibition.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10574

On 31 January 2024, Brann supporters chanted 'UEFA MAFIA' for approximately 20 seconds during a UEFA Women's Champions League match against SKN St. Pölten Frauen. On 1 February 2024, UEFA opened disciplinary proceedings. On 28 February 2024, the CEDB fined Brann EUR 5,000 for breaching Article 16(2)(e) DR on the basis of strict liability. Brann was notified of the grounds on 5 March 2024. On 7 March 2024, Brann announced its intention to appeal; on 11 March 2024, it filed grounds of appeal. On 25 March 2024, the UEFA Appeals Body dismissed the appeal, confirmed the EUR 5,000 fine, and ordered Brann to pay EUR 1,000 in costs. Grounds were communicated on 8 May 2024. On 18 May 2024, Brann filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS under Article R48 of the CAS Code. The Appeal Brief was filed on 28 May 2024. A videoconference hearing was held on 2 September 2024. CAS was asked to set aside the Appealed Decision, acquit Brann of the Appeals Body costs, and order UEFA to bear the costs of the CAS proceedings.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10574

The reasonable onlooker test applies under Article 16(2)(e) DR to determine objectively, in context, whether gestures, words or other means transmitted at a UEFA competition match constitute a provocative message not fit for a sports event.
The majority of the Panel found that the objective meaning of the chant 'UEFA MAFIA' in the specific context of this match — a short, isolated 20-second outburst triggered by a referee decision, during a match with an 'excellent' atmosphere — was consistent with the second English dictionary meaning of 'mafia' (a tight-knit controlling group), not an accusation that UEFA is a criminal organisation.
A provocative message within Article 16(2)(e) DR is one that elicits or incites a reaction from supporters posing a threat to public order and safety in or around the stadium; the majority found the chant did not meet that threshold on the evidence available.
UEFA did not discharge its burden of proving the disciplinary offence to the standard of comfortable satisfaction required by Article 24(2) DR, and accordingly no breach of Article 16(2)(e) DR arose.
Because no breach of Article 16(2)(e) DR was established, it was unnecessary to conduct the balancing exercise under Article 10(2) ECHR to assess whether the sanction was a justifiable infringement of freedom of expression.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The majority applied the reasonable onlooker test drawn from CAS 2013/A/3324 & 3369 and CAS 2022/A/9708, defining the reasonable onlooker as a well-informed person assessing all available and obtainable information in context. It noted that the English word 'mafia' carries at least two meanings: (1) a criminal organisation and (2) a tight-knit group exerting hidden or controlling influence. The majority rejected UEFA's submission that only the first meaning could apply, finding that a football match is not a criminal context and that the atmosphere was described as 'excellent' with no security concerns reported. The chant lasted approximately 20 seconds, arose spontaneously from a referee decision, was not repeated, and provoked no crowd disorder. The majority therefore attributed the second, pejorative but non-criminal meaning to the chant. It rejected the Respondent's argument that the reasonable onlooker would conclude the referee was corrupt or the match was fixed, finding no evidence to support that interpretation. The majority also rejected the Appellant's submission that the chant was part of a wider public-interest debate, for which there was equally no evidence. The panel declined to interfere with UEFA's regulatory discretion lightly but exercised its de novo review power, concluding UEFA had not proved the offence to comfortable satisfaction. The Article 10 ECHR balancing exercise was rendered unnecessary by this finding.

Why Brann v. UEFA matters in CAS jurisprudence

This is the first CAS panel to apply the reasonable onlooker test to the 'UEFA MAFIA' chant under Article 16(2)(e) DR and to hold that context is determinative of meaning. The majority's ruling that the chant's second dictionary meaning — a controlling clique rather than a criminal organisation — can apply in a football setting, and that a short isolated chant causing no disorder does not meet the Article 16(2)(e) threshold, introduces a context-sensitive, evidence-based standard that limits UEFA's longstanding practice of treating any use of the word 'mafia' as an automatic disciplinary violation.

Decision: Brann won; the UEFA Appeals Body decision of 25 March 2024 was set aside in its entirety and the EUR 5,000 fine was annulled.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2022/A/8651 CAS 2013/A/3324 & 3369 CAS 2022/A/9708 CAS 2014/A/3516 CAS 2010/A/2298 CAS 2019/A/6547

Frequently asked questions about Brann v. UEFA

Why did CAS overturn the UEFA fine on Brann for the 'UEFA MAFIA' chant?

The CAS majority applied the reasonable onlooker test and found that in context — a spontaneous 20-second chant triggered by a referee decision during a match the UEFA Match Delegate described as having an 'excellent' atmosphere — the chant conveyed the second English dictionary meaning of 'mafia' (a tight-knit controlling group) rather than an accusation of criminality. Because UEFA did not prove to the standard of comfortable satisfaction under Article 24(2) DR that the chant was a provocative message of an offensive nature threatening public order, no breach of Article 16(2)(e) DR was established and the EUR 5,000 fine was set aside.

Does the Brann v. UEFA award mean clubs can never be fined for 'UEFA MAFIA' chants?

No. The majority explicitly stated that its conclusion does not mean the chant 'UEFA MAFIA' can never be a provocative message of an offensive nature. The panel emphasised that UEFA retains its disciplinary powers where chants are provocative, cause disorder, or threaten public safety and order in a stadium. The decision turned on the specific facts: a short, isolated, non-repeated chant in a match with an excellent atmosphere and no reported security concerns.

What is the 'reasonable onlooker test' as applied in the Brann case?

Drawing on CAS 2013/A/3324 & 3369 and CAS 2022/A/9708, the panel held that the reasonable onlooker is a well-informed person who assesses all available and obtainable information in context — not merely an average fan. The test requires consideration of who said what, to whom, when, how, and against what background. In Brann, the panel assessed the chant's meaning in light of the match atmosphere, its duration, its trigger, and the absence of any crowd disorder.

How did the Brann panel treat the Article 10 ECHR freedom of expression argument?

The panel agreed to consider Article 10 ECHR and its jurisprudence when interpreting Article 16(2)(e) DR, noting that during the hearing UEFA itself conceded the panel could do so. However, because the majority found no breach of Article 16(2)(e) DR on the facts, it held it was unnecessary to conduct the Article 10(2) ECHR balancing exercise to determine whether the sanction would have been a justifiable infringement of freedom of expression.

Go deeper than the digest

Ask LexXi how this award has been applied since, compare it with related jurisprudence across 14,200+ indexed FIFA & CAS documents, and get answers with verified citations.

Ask LexXi about Brann v. UEFA — free

Topics: Doping, ethics & governance at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.