On 15 January 2018, the Court of Arbitration for Sports (“CAS”) with seat in Lausanne, Switzerland, partially upheld the appeal filed by Guangzhou Evergrande Taobao FC (“the Club”) against the decision of the AFC Appeal Committee issued on 19 July 2017, concerning the AFC Champions League match against Eastern FC, held on 26 April 2017 in Hong Kong. As a result, the sanction of 2 matches without spectators - to be served in the upcoming edition of the AFC Champions League - was deleted.

Llinks Law Offices, represented the Club during the various steps before the AFC and CAS.

On 24 April 2017, the Club was charged by the AFC Disciplinary Committee for violating articles 58 and 65 of the AFC Disciplinary and Ethics Code, because during the abovementioned match the supporters standing in the away sector of the stadium displayed an offensive banner against Hong Kong individuals.

On 3 May 2017, the AFC Disciplinary Committee confirmed the sanctions provided by articles 58 and 65, consisting in 2 matches without spectators and a fine of 22,500 USD. However, the AFC Disciplinary Committee agreed - due to the legal arguments provided on the Club’s defense - to suspend the sanction of 2 matches without spectators for a probationary period of 2 years.

On 19 July 2017, the AFC Appeal Committee rejected the appeal filed by the Club and thus confirmed the aforementioned AFC Disciplinary Committee decision.

In light of this, the Club decided to appeal such decision before CAS, relying on several reasons for the appeal being upheld. More in details, the Club considered that it was imposed a harsh and disproportionate sanction, taking into account that the AFC Disciplinary and Ethics Code had recently been amended in a more favorable way to the accused, as well as the significant contribution to the event of Eastern FC, by means of lack of security measures outside the stadium.

The Panel in the CAS proceedings agreed with some of the reasons for appeal explained by the Club and decided to impose a more lenient sanction, consisting in a mere fine of 22,500 USD. However, reasons for such award cannot be retraced yet, as the full grounds of the decision will be provided at a later stage.