Marinakis v Crystal Palace: The Defamation Claim Explained

Nottingham Forest’s owner, Evangelos Marinakis, is suing Crystal Palace for defamation – and the claim raises a question that goes well beyond football. It centres on a banner Crystal Palace supporters displayed last August, depicting Marinakis holding a gun to the head of Forest’s England midfielder, Morgan Gibbs-White. Filed at the High Court almost a year on, the case tests an area of law that rarely reaches court: can a club be held legally responsible for what its own fans put up? Below, we’ve outlined what’s been alleged, the law behind it and what it means if you are protecting your own reputation or your business’.

What happened at Selhurst Park

Crystal Palace and Nottingham Forest drew 1-1 at Selhurst Park on 24 August 2025. During the match, Palace’s ‘ultras’ unfurled a banner in the Holmesdale Stand depicting a caricature of Marinakis pointing a gun at Gibbs-White, alongside the line: “Mr Marinakis is not involved in blackmail, match-fixing, drug trafficking or corruption.”

The display followed months of tension between the two clubs. Palace had been demoted from the Europa League to the Conference League after UEFA ruled the club breached multi-club ownership rules – a decision the Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld on appeal – whilst Forest were promoted in Palace’s place. Some Palace supporters blame Marinakis for that outcome. The banner also referenced Gibbs-White’s failed move to Tottenham that summer, before he signed a new Forest contract instead.

The Football Association charged Palace with misconduct in November 2025 for failing to ensure supporters behaved appropriately and fined the club £50,000. Marinakis has now gone further, lodging a defamation claim against Crystal Palace and ‘persons unknown’ at the High Court – reportedly just under a year after the banner appeared. He denies all of the allegations it referenced. Crystal Palace has declined to comment on the case.

Why might this be defamatory?

Defamation law, covering both libel and slander, protects people and businesses from false statements that damage their reputation. Under the Defamation Act 2013, a claimant must show the statement was published to a third party, referred to them and caused, or was likely to cause, serious harm to their reputation. We’ve covered the fundamentals in more detail in our guide to the key principles of defamation.

A banner is a permanent, visible statement, so any claim here would be for libel rather than slander. What’s interesting is the wording. Taken literally, “Mr Marinakis is not involved in blackmail, match-fixing, drug trafficking or corruption” denies wrongdoing. But defamation isn’t decided on literal words alone; courts ask what meaning a statement conveys to an ordinary, reasonable reader, in context. We saw this play out in Fox v Blake, where the Court of Appeal confirmed that context, not just the words used, determines whether something is defamatory. Paired with the image, the banner’s ironic phrasing arguably does the opposite of what it says literally. A claim like this can rest on the publication of false statements, the creation of an image or simply allowing one to be displayed; all seemingly relevant here.

Can a football club be liable for what its fans display?

Here’s the genuinely novel part. The claim names Crystal Palace itself, alongside the unidentified fans who made the banner, not just the individuals responsible. That raises a question without a clear, settled answer: when does a club become legally responsible, in defamation, for material its own supporters bring into the stadium?

Marinakis’s case is reported to rest on the belief that Palace did nothing to prevent the banner being displayed, or to remove it quickly, and that he’s seeking to establish, legally, how responsible the club is. Football’s disciplinary rules already hold clubs accountable for crowd conduct, which is why the FA fined Palace. But a regulatory duty under FA rules is a different thing from civil liability in defamation, and it isn’t yet clear that one leads to the other. This is untested territory, and however it’s resolved, the case could shape how football clubs and other organisations that host public gatherings manage what their crowds display.

A regulatory fine doesn’t rule out a civil claim

It’s worth asking why Marinakis is pursuing Palace through the courts at all, given the FA has already fined the club. The two processes serve different purposes. The FA’s fine addressed Palace’s regulatory duty to control its crowd, which is a sporting sanction paid to football’s governing body, not to Marinakis. A defamation claim is a private civil action aimed at vindicating an individual’s reputation and, if successful, securing damages or another remedy for the person actually affected.

The same principle applies well beyond football. A regulator’s fine or a disciplinary sanction against a business rarely closes the door on a separate civil claim by the person who was actually harmed.

The one-year deadline: why acting quickly matters

One detail is easy to miss but genuinely important: Marinakis lodged his claim about a year, almost to the day, after the banner was displayed. That’s no coincidence. Defamation claims are subject to a strict one-year limitation period from the date of publication, under section 4A of the Limitation Act 1980. Miss it, and the right to sue is generally lost, regardless of how serious the statement was. That’s considerably shorter than the limitation period for most other civil claims, such as breach of contract, which typically allows six years.

If you believe you’ve been defamed, the lesson from this case is simple: don’t wait to take advice. There are, however, a few exceptions to this rule, and accordingly it is always worth seeking advice on your specific circumstances.

What this means for protecting your reputation

Most defamation cases never involve a Premier League banner or a High Court claim against a football club, but the underlying issues are common ones. Reputational harm can come from an individual, a business or, as this case explores, potentially an organisation that allowed something damaging to be published or displayed. Whether you’re dealing with false statements made about you personally, or your business is facing something similar from a competitor, an ex-employee or an online review, the same questions apply: was it defamatory; has it caused serious harm; and how quickly do you need to act?