This Champions League final between PSG and Arsenal was to establish a king of Europe. It also risks leaving behind a huge arbitration controversy. At the end of a stifling match concluded on penalties and won by the Parisians (1-1, 4-3 tab), a large part of the post-match debates will not only concern the performances of the players or the tactical choices of Luis Enrique and Mikel Arteta. At the heart of the discussions: the performance of German referee Daniel Siebert. In an extremely tense meeting, marked by numerous duels, permanent disputes and several contentious situations in both areas, the German official often let the game play, provoking the anger of both camps. The first big point of contention obviously concerns Arsenal. In the first period, the Gunners claimed a penalty after a Parisian handball in the area in a situation initiated by Bukayo Saka. An action which immediately caused the London bench to jump but which did not give rise to an intervention by the VAR.
Later, Mikel Arteta’s players also felt that certain Parisian faults would have deserved more disciplinary sanctions, notably when Hakimi appeared to hold Kai Havertz by the throat near the touchline. The Moroccan full-back escaped without warning. In overtime, it was Noni Madueke who triggered a new sequence of protests after a duel with Nuno Mendes in the Parisian area. The English winger collapsed and insisted on demanding a penalty, without managing to convince Daniel Siebert. A decision which maddened the Gunners bench, already particularly tense after several situations deemed unfavorable. At the final whistle, Arteta did not mince his words. “Looking back at the images, there was clearly a penalty. Things didn’t go the way we wanted. A penalty was awarded to PSG, no penalty was awarded to us on Madueke, and then the penalty shootout… It’s been 22 years since we reached the final of the Champions League, we have to recognize the season that we had, we didn’t lose a single match in the Champions League (in the game) but for the moment, no one will be able to erase our pain..
British media refuse to attack Siebert
But Paris also has several arguments to fuel the debate. During a large part of the match, the Parisians denounced the extreme permissiveness of the referee regarding Arsenal’s numerous time-saving sequences. It was not until the 48th minute that Cristhian Mosquera was booked for delaying a throw-in too long when the Londoners had already been breaking the rhythm for many minutes. Luis Enrique’s players have also long called for more protection against repeated fouls intended to cut off their offensive transitions. Above all, the European champions considered that a first penalty could have been whistled in the first period for a disputed handball in the English area. A situation which fueled Parisian frustration as PSG outrageously dominated possession without managing to break the opposing lock. And inevitably, the action that will remain at the center of all analyzes is that of the penalty awarded to PSG in the 62nd minute. After video consultation, Daniel Siebert sanctioned Cristhian Mosquera’s clumsy tackle on Khvicha Kvaratskhelia in the area. A decision considered logical on the Parisian side but already contested in England where some observers believe that the contact was insufficient to cause such a fall. This penalty transformed by Ousmane Dembélé completely changed the appearance of the final and allowed PSG to return to the match. However, while some members of the Arsenal clan let their annoyance show after the meeting, the English press showed surprising restraint.
Where many expected to see the British media tackle Daniel Siebert head-on, the country’s main newspapers preferred to highlight the cruelty of the scenario rather than the arbitration decisions. THE Mirror evokes a “heart torn for the Gunners” after a cruel elimination on penalties. The Sun speaks of a “heartbreaking disillusionment” which puts an end to the Londoners’ dream of a double. Sky Sports also emphasizes this “cruel disillusionment” experienced by Arsenal while the Telegraph focuses mainly on the analysis of the penalty shootout and the details that turned the match around. None of these media makes refereeing the central topic of the evening. This attitude contrasts sharply with the hot reactions observed around the London club. Where some English supporters and observers might be tempted to look for extenuating circumstances, the headlines in the British press mostly recognized that the final was decided on sporting details. THE Guardian sums up the evening by explaining that “Arsenal’s European dream vanished on penalties against PSG who retained their continental crown“. Even the Daily Mail prefers to focus on the mockery aimed at Arsenal after the match and on Mikel Arteta’s past statements rather than on Daniel Siebert. A form of editorial elegance that contrasts with the heated debates around arbitration. A few hours after the final, the English press chose to talk about football, where many could have looked for someone to blame. Behind, each whistle was experienced as a psychological battle until the penalty shootout. Beyond PSG’s historic coronation, Daniel Siebert will find himself at the heart of a huge European debate in the coming hours. And on the Arsenal side, the frustration may take a very long time to subside.
