Evangelos Marinakis Takes Crystal Palace to High Court Over Defamation

Evangelos Marinakis is taking Crystal Palace to the High Court over a banner he believes has dragged his name through the mud on a global scale.

The Nottingham Forest owner has issued defamation proceedings against the south London club after a flag was unfurled at Selhurst Park last season depicting him holding a gun to the head of Forest midfielder Morgan Gibbs-White.

The image appeared last August, in the early weeks of the campaign, in the aftermath of Gibbs-White’s failed move to Tottenham. The midfielder instead signed a contract extension at the City Ground, but the fallout from that transfer saga has now spilled far beyond the pitch.

The banner did not stop at the gun imagery. It also carried lurid, unsubstantiated claims about the Greek billionaire’s business dealings, language Marinakis and his legal team regard as a serious and reputationally toxic attack.

Last week, the Forest owner lodged his claim in the High Court, escalating a dispute that had already been examined by the Football Association.

Back in November, following an FA investigation into the incident, Crystal Palace were charged over the banner and ultimately fined £50,000. That sanction has not satisfied Marinakis. Sky Sports News understands he believes the punishment falls well short of addressing what he sees as lasting and worldwide damage to his reputation, and he is intent on pursuing the matter “to the full extent of the law”.

At the heart of his case is the contention that Crystal Palace failed on two fronts: they did not prevent the banner from entering Selhurst Park and they did not move quickly enough to have it removed once it was displayed.

His lawyers are now working to establish, in legal terms, exactly how responsible the club can be held for the creation and public display of the image inside their stadium.

FA regulations are clear on one point: clubs are responsible for ensuring their supporters do not engage in behaviour that is “improper, offensive, abusive, insulting and/or provocative”. That duty of care in the stands is now set to be tested against the sharper edges of defamation law.

In such cases, a claimant can sue on three broad grounds: the publication of allegedly false statements, the creation of an image, or the decision to allow such an image to be displayed. Marinakis’ action appears to lean heavily on that final element, zeroing in on what Palace did or did not do as the banner appeared in their home end.

Sky Sports News has contacted Crystal Palace for comment. The club has yet to respond.

Nottingham Forest, approached separately, declined to comment on what they described as an ongoing legal matter.

The legal battle now moves from the noise of the terraces to the quiet, unforgiving corridors of the High Court, where the question will be stark: where does fan expression end, and a club’s legal responsibility begin?