FRF fines Rapid more than FCSB after derby racist chants

The FRF Disciplinary Commission issued sanctions against both FC Rapid 1923 and FCSB after racist chants occurred during their Superliga derby on October 24. The match ended with a 4-1 scoreline. The disciplinary body reviewed the incidents and applied financial penalties to both clubs based on the specific regulations governing such offenses.

FC Rapid 1923 received cumulative fines totaling 41,250 lei for the infractions. However, under Article 45.1 of the Disciplinary Regulations, the club is required to pay only the highest individual penalty rather than the cumulative sum. Consequently, the actual amount payable by FC Rapid 1923 is 16,875 lei. This regulation caps the financial liability when multiple sanctions are issued simultaneously for related events.

FCSB was sanctioned with two separate fines that totaled 15,000 lei. Unlike the provision applied to Rapid, Article 45.3 of the Disciplinary Regulations stipulates that FCSB must pay the full cumulative amount. This distinction in regulatory application resulted in FC Rapid 1923 facing a higher single payment despite having a larger initial cumulative fine assessment before the cap was applied.

Reports indicated that FCSB supporters led racist chants during and after the match. These chants were reportedly applauded by players from Laurențiu Reghecampf's team. Despite these incidents occurring within the stadium environment, referee Horațiu Feșnic did not issue any sanctions or stop play during the 90 minutes of the match to address the racist behavior.

LPF General Secretary Justin Ștefan stated that future measures are necessary to address such conduct. He identified the referee as a determining factor in managing these situations, noting that officials have the authority to decide to suspend matches when racist incidents occur. This highlights the procedural mechanism available to referees that was not utilized during this specific fixture.

Mihai Stoica denied that the chants from FCSB fans targeted the Roma community. He asserted that the term used was pejorative rather than ethnic in nature. This statement contests the characterization of the incident as racially motivated against a specific ethnic group, distinguishing it from the disciplinary commission's classification of the offense.