Evangelos Marinakis Takes Crystal Palace to Court Over Defamatory Banner
Evangelos Marinakis is taking Crystal Palace to the High Court in a defamation battle over a controversial banner that depicted the Nottingham Forest owner holding a gun to the head of Morgan Gibbs-White.
The image, unfurled at Selhurst Park last season, appeared in August, in the immediate aftermath of Gibbs-White’s failed move to Tottenham and his subsequent contract extension at the City Ground. The flag did not stop at the gun graphic; it also carried lurid, unsubstantiated claims about the Greek billionaire’s business dealings.
Marinakis has now moved the dispute from the stands to the courtroom.
From terrace taunt to legal fight
Forest’s owner lodged his claim in the High Court last week, escalating a row that had already drawn the attention of the Football Association.
An FA investigation into the incident concluded in November, with Crystal Palace charged over the banner and ultimately fined £50,000. That sanction has not satisfied Marinakis. Sky Sports News understands he believes the punishment falls far short of addressing what he views as global damage to his reputation, and he is determined to pursue the south London club to the full extent of the law.
At the heart of his case is a simple contention: Crystal Palace, he argues, did nothing meaningful to stop the banner being displayed and did not act quickly enough to have it removed once it appeared. His legal team is now working to establish precisely how responsible the club can be held for the presence of the image inside Selhurst Park.
Under FA regulations, clubs carry clear responsibility for their supporters’ conduct. They must ensure fans do not behave in a way that is “improper, offensive, abusive, insulting and/or provocative”. The FA has already decided Palace fell short of that standard on the day in question. Marinakis now wants a civil court to decide whether the club also crossed the line into defamation.
The legal battleground
Defamation law offers three main routes for a claim: the publication of alleged false statements, the creation of an image, or allowing such an image to be displayed. Marinakis’ action leans heavily on that last point, arguing that the club’s failure to prevent or swiftly remove the banner amounts to allowing a defamatory image to be broadcast to the world.
In a Premier League era where every flash of colour in the stands is captured and shared globally within seconds, the reach of a single banner can be vast. That, Marinakis believes, is where the true damage lies.
Crystal Palace have been contacted for comment. Nottingham Forest, approached on the matter, declined to comment on an ongoing legal case.
The FA has already delivered its verdict on the incident. Now a High Court judge will decide whether a moment of terrace provocation becomes a landmark test of how far clubs must go to police what their own fans choose to display.
