Gerard Piqué’s six-match suspension and two-month ban upheld by Spain’s sports tribunal

Spain’s Administrative Sports Tribunal (TAD) has upheld Gerard Piqué’s six-match suspension and two-month ban over incidents involving the match officials during FC Andorra’s game against Albacete Balompié on May 1, 2026.

The ruling, dated September 10, also confirms the sanctions against the club, Cristian Lanzarote and Jaume Nogués, while overturning those imposed on Ferran Vilaseca.

According to the referee’s report cited in the case, Piqué challenged the referee’s performance at half-time and, after the match, shouted at him and pursued him through the tunnel to the entrance of the officials’ dressing room.

Tribunal rejects Piqué’s defence arguments

Piqué’s defence argued that there had been no physical contact and that his conduct was protected by freedom of expression. The TAD rejected those arguments, finding that the disciplinary offence of minor violence does not necessarily require physical contact. According to the tribunal, pursuing the referee and shouting at close range, in the circumstances described in the report, went beyond a verbal protest.

Alongside the six-match suspension, the tribunal upheld a two-month ban for remarks attributed to Piqué as the officials were heading towards the car park. The TAD found the remarks contrary to sporting dignity or decorum and rejected the argument that the absence of spectators or media coverage prevented them from being punished as public acts.

The ruling also confirms that Piqué falls under the federation’s disciplinary jurisdiction despite not formally holding a board position. The tribunal identified evidence that he acts as a de facto administrator or director of FC Andorra, including indirect control of a majority stake through Kosmos, regular accreditation as club personnel and involvement in sporting management decisions.

FC Andorra fined €1,500 and ordered to close presidential box for two matches

The TAD confirmed a €1,500 fine and a partial stadium closure for two matches, covering FC Andorra’s presidential box and adjoining VIP areas.

The sanction relates to Piqué’s access to the dressing-room tunnel, which is considered a restricted internal area. The club argued that he held accreditation and that the tunnel was not strictly part of the dressing rooms.

However, the tribunal ruled that accreditation issued by the club does not extend the access rights established under federation regulations. It also found a deliberate and repeated failure to enforce access controls, citing previous incidents during the season and an earlier warning that had become final.

Sanctions against Lanzarote and Nogués upheld

The TAD upheld Cristian Lanzarote’s three-match suspension for showing disrespect towards an assistant referee. According to the referee’s report, he told the official up to five times that he was “the worst assistant referee in the division”.

The tribunal also confirmed his two-month suspension for failing to fulfil his duties as the club’s matchday delegate. It found that he had failed to carry out his responsibilities to protect the officials and contain the situation during the post-match incidents.

For sporting director Jaume Nogués, the tribunal upheld a six-match suspension for verbally insulting the match officials in the dressing-room tunnel and a two-month ban over the remark “I hope you have an accident”, which the report attributes to him as the officials were heading towards the car park.

Nogués denied making the remark. However, the TAD found that neither his account nor the security report submitted by the club demonstrated a clear error in the referee’s report.

Ferran Vilaseca’s suspension overturned

The ruling overturned the four-month suspension and accompanying fine imposed on FC Andorra president Ferran Vilaseca for an attempted disciplinary offence.

The decision concerns the calculation of the penalty and does not mean that the tribunal rejected the account of the incident. Under the TAD’s interpretation, the punishment for an attempted offence had to fall below the three-month minimum applicable to the completed offence.

The ruling exhausts the administrative appeals process, but it can be challenged before the administrative courts within two months of notification.