LFP discipline chief, Sébastien Deneux, addresses the confirmed 0-0 draw for Nantes-Toulouse: “there were no sporting stakes involved”
LFP Disciplinary Commission President Sébastien Deneux has clarified the controversial decision to uphold the 0-0 scoreline for the Nantes-Toulouse fixture, which was prematurely halted on May 17th due to a pitch invasion. This ruling has drawn criticism from Toulouse FC.
The final Ligue 1 matchday encounter between Nantes and Toulouse on May 17th saw an early stoppage after Nantes supporters stormed the pitch. Following this, the LFP Disciplinary Commission’s choice to ratify the 0-0 result has been met with strong disapproval from Toulouse FC, who have indicated they are considering an appeal against the ruling.
“We regret that this fixture could not be completed under normal circumstances, and we question what the club could realistically have done, given the context, to allow the match to finish,” Toulouse FC stated in a press release. The club further added, “We will also remain vigilant regarding the potential detrimental precedents such a decision might set for the future.” It is clear that the Toulouse side would have preferred a 3-0 victory by forfeit. Sébastien Deneux, the LFP Disciplinary Commission President, now addresses the brewing controversy.
“The decision to confirm the match score, especially when Nantes and their supporters caused the interruption, has raised many questions…”
“Firstly,” Deneux began, “this specific option was integrated into our regulations two years ago. Prior to that, in cases of permanently interrupted matches, the choices were restricted to either forfeiting the game or replaying it with a 0-0 starting score. Secondly, and this is a crucial aspect here, this particular case was unique because there were no sporting implications for either team at the moment of the stoppage. FC Nantes had already been relegated, and Toulouse FC, whether they drew or won, would have finished 9th in the Ligue 1 standings with either 45 or 47 points. Consequently, from a purely sporting perspective, the outcome of declaring a forfeited match versus confirming the existing score had precisely the same effect.”
“It is absolutely out of the question for clubs and supporters to attempt to influence the match’s fate through their conduct.”
“But why was this decision chosen, and not a forfeiture of the match?”
“The range of options available to the Disciplinary Commission was specifically expanded to separate, as much as possible, the sporting consequences from the disciplinary sanctions themselves, thereby preventing a ‘windfall effect’,” Deneux clarified. “This ‘windfall effect’ would see a club gain an unearned sporting advantage due to the opposing supporters’ actions at the time of the match’s interruption. In this instance, we opted to confirm the existing score, as it’s highly debatable why Toulouse FC should be awarded a 3-0 victory by default for a match that was halted at 0-0.”
“Do you not fear that this decision could establish a dangerous precedent for future cases?”
“No, not at all,” Deneux asserted. “Precisely because this decision must be viewed through the specific lens I just mentioned: the absence of any sporting impact. In virtually any other scenario, and without delving into ‘disciplinary fiction,’ it is almost certain that a different ruling would have been made. It is absolutely out of the question that clubs and their supporters could attempt to influence the outcome of a match through a permanent interruption, hoping to gain any kind of advantage. We will always maintain extreme vigilance on this matter.”