By 
Huddersfield Town have been handed a huge fine of £50,000 by the English FA after violating a sponsorship kit relating to a spoof kit worn during a pre-season
friendly game.
friendly game.
It was revealed that Huddersfield had launched their new home kit in July featuring
diagonal shoulder to advertise Paddy Power branding that breached the FA’s strict
regulations on shirt sponsorship.
diagonal shoulder to advertise Paddy Power branding that breached the FA’s strict
regulations on shirt sponsorship.
The club kit was subsequently worn for a friendly against Rochdale,
before it was later revealed to the media that it was a joke and publicity stunt, with the bookmaker “Paddy
Power”’s deal actually seeing Huddersfield’s shirt be left completely free of
any sponsor logos for the duration of the season.
before it was later revealed to the media that it was a joke and publicity stunt, with the bookmaker “Paddy
Power”’s deal actually seeing Huddersfield’s shirt be left completely free of
any sponsor logos for the duration of the season.
But the damage had already gone far. Subsequently, a misconduct charge was
brought last month and the club have now admitted the charge, resulting in
a total sum of £50,000 fine for the club.
brought last month and the club have now admitted the charge, resulting in
a total sum of £50,000 fine for the club.
The officiating referee Martin Coy has revealed that Huddersfield town Fc were
hoping to be banned from wearing the kit against Rochdale, a development that
was expected to further aid the club publicity.
hoping to be banned from wearing the kit against Rochdale, a development that
was expected to further aid the club publicity.
it was recalled that Hundersfield town Fc had already been warned by the English FA that wearing the
kit with the Paddy Power branding would be a breach of the rules and “Martin Coy” explained that club chairman “Phil Hodgkinson” had told the officiating referee before the
Rochdale friendly that he wanted him to ban it from being worn.
kit with the Paddy Power branding would be a breach of the rules and “Martin Coy” explained that club chairman “Phil Hodgkinson” had told the officiating referee before the
Rochdale friendly that he wanted him to ban it from being worn.
“Phil Hodgkinson” was apparently concerned about the threat of an FA
charge, but considered the possibility of Coy banning the kit to be good for
the advertising campaign.
charge, but considered the possibility of Coy banning the kit to be good for
the advertising campaign.
The officiating referee further expressed his unwillingness to get involved in such a publicity stunt, but recommended that Huddersfield follow
the FA’s advice. Coy said he was then informed by Hodgkinson that the kit would
not be worn and he wouldn’t be part of any advertising. But Huddersfield
did wear the kit and have now been punished for it.
the FA’s advice. Coy said he was then informed by Hodgkinson that the kit would
not be worn and he wouldn’t be part of any advertising. But Huddersfield
did wear the kit and have now been punished for it.
