The Football Association is now obligated to pay Nottingham Forest a substantial six-figure compensation after losing a prominent legal case concerning accusations of ‘bias’ from one of its panel chairs against the club.

In a ruling that poses serious embarrassment and raises profound concerns within the governing body, legal experts determined that Graeme McPherson KC had engaged in what seemed to be an ‘unwarranted, improper, and personal attack on the club’ following its penalties for a notorious tweet.

After Forest’s 2-0 loss to Everton last April, which included three controversial penalty decisions, the club criticized X sharply, claiming they had cautioned PGMOL about the VAR for the crucial relegation battle being a Luton supporter, yet no changes were made by the referees’ organization.

Furious, Forest retaliated, arguing that the FA was being unreasonable and arbitrarily determining a penalty amount. However, Mr. McPherson, who led the FA panel’s initial ruling, dismissed ‘the club’s somewhat exaggerated argument’.

Forest was initially fined £750,000, prompting an appeal. Mr. McPherson was again chosen by the FA to oversee the appeal, leading Forest to object due to his earlier remarks. Ultimately, he withdrew from the case citing ‘prior engagements’.

Later in 2024, Forest received a £125,000 fine and Chelsea £40,000 following a large brawl during their Premier League match at Stamford Bridge.

Again, Forest appealed and were left stunned when Mr McPherson was named as the chair of the panel.

They claimed Mr McPherson’s ‘hysterical’ comment meant he should be recused from the Chelsea matter on the grounds of apparent bias and sought an arbitration hearing.

That hearing has now concluded – and has ruled in Forest’s favour. Despite Mr McPherson’s claims to the contrary, the panel found that this was ‘a case where apparent bias has been made out’. They added: ‘There can be no doubt but that the description…as ‘somewhat hysterical’ can fairly be said to be, and would be seen by the notional fair-minded independent observer to be, an unjustified, inappropriate, and personal attack on the club and its legal representatives.’

The panel described Mr McPherson’s use of the word ‘hysterical’ as ‘inherently highly pejorative’ adding: ‘a fair-minded informed person would consider that there was a real possibility that Mr McPherson was biased against the club’.

The ruling continued: ‘The Tribunal has no doubt that, having found that Mr McPherson suffers from apparent bias in relation to the club, and that the bias arises out of disciplinary proceedings brought by the FA against the club, he should not sit on the tribunal dealing with the Chelsea Proceedings.’

Forest had also sought to stop Mr McPherson from sitting on any alleged misconduct panels involving the club during this season. However, that request was rejected as such a move would be ‘unfair’.

The FA declined to comment.

A new chair of the panel for the appeal will now have to be found, with the FA to be hit in the pocket. They will have to pay the cost of the tribunal, which was £105,750 plus VAT, their own legal costs and Forest’s bill.

Ahead of the arrival of the Independent Regulator, the matter may well trigger embarrassment at the FA. Areas of discipline are widely viewed as one of few areas in which the governing body retains some semblance of power given the domination of the Premier League.