FPF Disciplinary Council dismissed APAF complaint against Pepa

At Estádio dos Arcos in Vila do Conde, the final whistle left Estrela da Amadora and Rio Ave level at 3-3. In the flash interview that followed on 14 September, Pepa criticised referee Gustavo Correia and VAR official Luís Ferreira over the penalty that produced Rio Ave’s equaliser. He described the award as surreal and said Estrela had been denied two points.

They took two points from us.

The FPF Disciplinary Council dismissed APAF’s complaint because it found the accusation unfounded. It did not find it proven that Pepa’s criticism of the penalty and refereeing decisions called referees’ honour or seriousness into question. That is why the comments did not bring discipline in this case. The decision does not set a general test for when criticism after a match crosses the line: it gives no rule that coaches can apply to future comments, or that referees’ bodies can rely on in later complaints.

The penalty was more than a disputed call: it was the decision that supplied Rio Ave’s final goal and levelled the score. That made Pepa’s criticism of the award the flashpoint in the complaint, according to Record and Observador.

APAF’s case was framed through disciplinary provisions on harm to the honour and reputation of sports bodies and their members. The complaint cited articles 136(1) and 136(4), referring to article 112 and, through articles 168(2) and 168(3), the professional league’s disciplinary regulations, Record and Observador reported. The rules concern the standing of referees and other members of sports bodies; they put the question of how Pepa’s remarks affected that standing at the centre of the case.

The Council was deciding a disciplinary complaint, not whether the penalty was correctly awarded. Its task was to assess the allegation about Pepa’s comments: whether they crossed from criticism of refereeing decisions into a challenge to referees’ honour and seriousness.

That distinction matters. A coach can condemn a decision in strong terms without the complaint automatically succeeding; the issue before the Council was what Pepa’s words amounted to in this case. Its dismissal does not declare the penalty right or wrong, nor does it amount to a general endorsement of every form of post-match criticism.

His reaction was relief as well as satisfaction. Speaking at a press conference on 23 October, he said he felt the outcome had delivered justice, while making clear that he was not upset simply because a case had been brought against him. He also said football should allow criticism of clear incidents when expressed with moderation and respect, and that post-match remarks come amid the emotion of the game.

I did not hide; I made sure I was heard and explained my version. I was very pleased, and relieved, because I felt justice had been done.

That concern gives the case its strongest rationale. Public criticism can touch the standing of officials, even when it follows a disputed decision; the question was whether Pepa’s words did so.

Pepa’s answer was that his comments addressed the incident, not Gustavo Correia as a person, and that he had no intention of offending the referee or anyone else. Speaking to O Jogo, he drew that distinction directly:

We are in a free country, where there was no offence against the person [the referee of the match, Gustavo Correia] or anyone. It was a question of talking about one incident.

Other Portuguese cases show that public criticism of refereeing has sometimes brought sanctions. FC Porto coach Sérgio Conceição was fined €765 after post-match comments following a game against Rio Ave, under three disciplinary provisions, including one on civility and propriety, Record reported. In 2025, Moreirense coach Cristiano Bacci received a 20-day suspension and a €3,085 fine after comments about referee Gustavo Correia following a 3-1 defeat by FC Porto, Observador reported.

A separate case involved Benfica’s official X account, not a coach speaking after a match. The club was fined €1,836 for criticism posted before the Supertaça Cândido Oliveira against Sporting. The Court of Arbitration for Sport rejected Benfica’s appeal by majority, leaving the fine in place. A Bola reported that the court described the rule as addressing an abstract risk during the restricted period before an official match.

The flash interview at Estádio dos Arcos began with a penalty that Pepa called surreal and ended with a complaint that the FPF Disciplinary Council has now dismissed. His next scheduled appointment is on the pitch: Estrela da Amadora are due to visit Moreirense on 31 October. The decision closes this case, while leaving later comments to be judged on their own circumstances.

That return to football gives the episode its next marker. Pepa’s words after Rio Ave’s equaliser brought scrutiny; what he says after Estrela’s next match, if anything, will be watched in the light of a ruling that cleared him without drawing a wider line.

• After the Moreirense match: whether Pepa makes further public comments about refereeing or the disciplinary case.