The Independent Football Ombudsman (IFO) has been established by the football authorities (The Football Association, The Premier League, and The English Football League), to investigate complaints that have not been resolved by these bodies.

The FA has rejected recommendations for case reference: 18/24.

In line with agreed protocol, where a Football Authority or club considers that it cannot – for whatever reason – implement any recommendation of the IFO, it will publish the reasoning behind such a decision and any proposed alternative resolution to the complaint:

FA reject recommendation by Independent Football Ombudsman (IFO)
IFO Case Ref 18/24]

The FA rejects the findings and therefore the recommendations of The IFO for the below reasons:

Although the rules relating to persistent standing in Wembley Stadium are clear our stewards first priority has to be the safety of all guests.

Therefore when fans stand up en masse it is often far more dangerous for stewards to start mass ejections as this is extremely likely to cause a flash point. This was the case on this occasion. It is worth noting that the IFO accepts this justification.

All of our games are subject to review from the Safety Advisory Group and the local council who had no issues with how our stewards handled this match (The 2018 Emirates FA Cup semi-final between Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester United)  and they were also satisfied with the way the aisles were looked after.

Our alternative for fans who are suffering due to persistent standing is to do our best to relocate them within the ground however for this game the clubs had sold their allocation and very few re-seats were available. Many of these had been taken up early on by fans who had expressed to us physical disabilities which precluded them from standing. The complainant did not approach the stewards until half-time by which point all the re-seats had been used.

The IFO also raises the issue of why the PA system was not used to request fans to sit down. The PA system is only used in-game for emergency announcements and key event information because the more frequent PA announcements are the less supporters will listen to them. For this reason we would only make an announcement regarding persistent standing if we felt there was a risk to the safety of guests inside the stadium. This was not the case on this occasion.

There is also a burden on the selling club to sell tickets appropriately. Tottenham have a large group of fans who were known to persistently stand at White Hart Lane and therefore the club should know to not position young fans or those with mobility issues behind such supporters as this is likely to create an issue.

The IFO cited a ‘delay in responding’ and this is also rejected by The FA. During the height of ‘event season’ (April, May, June) The FA offers no SLA for responding to enquiries that are not of a time sensitive nature. The complainant’s enquiry was not of a time sensitive nature. The FA does use automated replies and the complainant would have received such a reply, assuring them that their complaint had been received. This is the recommendation of The IFO in their report and The FA met this recommendation at the time. The FA also responded within 1 month which the organisation feels is reasonable for a complaint of this nature.

Finally, it is worth noting that, since this decision The IFO has met with The FA’s Customer Engagement Manager and Wembley Stadium’s Head of Crowd Safety and Senior Crowd Safety Manager so The IFO can further understand the reasons for our decision and our safety & customer service procedures in general.