Marinakis launches defamation claim against Crystal Palace over gun banner
Developed over time first seen 2 months ago
Nottingham Forest owner Evangelos Marinakis has filed a defamation claim in the High Court against Crystal Palace over a banner unfurled by Palace supporters that depicted him holding a gun to the head of Forest midfielder Morgan Gibbs-White. The claim, lodged by Marinakis' lawyers, names CPFC Limited as one of two defendants and reflects lingering tension between the two clubs, with Marinakis maintaining he has done nothing wrong regarding the allegations referenced on the banner.
The banner appeared during a 1-1 Premier League draw at Selhurst Park in August 2025 and read: "Mr Marinakis is not involved in blackmail, match-fixing, drug trafficking or corruption." The Football Association separately charged Palace in November 2025 over failing to prevent improper or offensive fan conduct, though the banner was not confirmed as the specific trigger. Gibbs-White, the player depicted in the banner, nearly left Forest for Tottenham last summer after a reported £60m release clause was triggered but ultimately signed a new contract to stay. Both Crystal Palace and Nottingham Forest were approached for comment.
- Marinakis sues Crystal Palace over gun-threat banner targeting him and Gibbs-White
- High Court defamation claim lodged, naming CPFC Limited as defendant
- Follows FA charge against Palace over fan conduct in November 2025
New here? Start with this
Nottingham Forest and Crystal Palace are two Premier League clubs whose fixture last August produced a lasting off-field dispute. Forest's owner, Greek shipping magnate Evangelos Marinakis, has previously faced allegations linked to match-fixing and other wrongdoing in Greek football, which he has consistently denied. During the game at Selhurst Park, Palace fans displayed a banner referencing those allegations alongside an image of Marinakis threatening Forest player Morgan Gibbs-White, a young England international who was heavily linked with a move away from Forest around that time.
Marinakis is now taking legal action against Crystal Palace in the High Court, arguing the banner was defamatory. The case sits alongside separate disciplinary action by the Football Association against Palace over fan conduct, and against a backdrop of tension between the two clubs after Palace's demotion from the Europa League to the Conference League last season for breaching UEFA's ownership rules, a demotion that saw Forest take their place in the competition.
The dispute matters because it touches on how football fans can express grievances towards club owners, the boundaries of defamation law in a sporting context, and the wider scrutiny multi-club ownership structures have faced in European football.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of Marinakis's lawsuit argue that a banner explicitly listing blackmail, match-fixing, drug trafficking and corruption alongside an image of a gun to a player's head goes far beyond ordinary fan banter or protest, and instead makes concrete, unproven criminal accusations against a named individual in a public, highly visible setting. They contend that wealthy or prominent people are not thereby stripped of the right to defend their reputation through the courts, and that clubs bear responsibility for what is displayed by supporters in their stadium, particularly when the material could be read as intimidating both Marinakis and a player, Gibbs-White, who was linked with a transfer away from the club. Allowing such imagery to go unchallenged, on this view, would effectively license serious defamatory claims against anyone simply because they are aired through a football banner rather than conventional media.
The case against
Those more sympathetic to Palace and their supporters would argue that the banner, however crude, was plainly a piece of exaggerated fan satire responding to publicly circulating allegations and rumours, not a literal claim intended to be taken at face value, and that football crowds have long expressed pointed criticism of owners and executives through banners, chants and imagery without it being treated as actionable defamation. They would emphasise that pursuing a High Court claim against a football club over supporter conduct risks chilling legitimate fan expression and protest, imposing a financial and legal burden disproportionate to a banner shown once at a single match, and that context matters: the message was evidently a rebuttal-in-jest of allegations already in public discourse rather than an original accusation presented as fact.
More coverage
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by BBC Sport as “Forest owner Marinakis sues Palace over gun banner”.