Restoring confidence you say.
Maybe we should ask for more than a fine in the case of Chelsea’s industrialised cheating, which was overseen by a (later to be sanctioned) state aligned actor. £10m means nothing to current owners, a PE firm with $185 billion in assets under management.
Or perhaps we’d have more confidence if City, owned by another state and found guilty twice by UEFA, hadn’t been able to run out the clock through lack of cooperation and an army of lawyers? (Receiving a pointless fine in the process.)
That’s not even getting into the fact that we are yet to hear a confidence building verdict on 115 other charges of mega scale cheating at City.
Confidence in justice is destroyed but it’s because the biggest cheats seem to get away with it.
When it is argued, in various football disputes, that points deductions must be imposed even for inadvertent breaches, in order to vindicate compliant clubs, one has to wonder whether that reflects a genuine commitment to consistent strict enforcement in all cases, or is simply a position adopted for the purposes of a particular case.
Consistency is very important in sport - the lack of it can undermine public confidence in the integrity of the whole game.
I do not comment on any one individual case, I just hope that those involved in the decision making processes can see the merit in treating each case according to its particular circumstances rather than being inflexible in some, but very flexible in others.
That, I am sure, would help restore the confidence in sports arbitration we all wish for.