La sanction n’est pas une décision de justice. On parle ici d’une sanction sportive décidée par une "Commission de discipline indépendante", sous l’égide de la FA (Football Association) qui gère le football en angleterre. Ayant notamment pour rôle de faire appliquer les règles de discipline dans ce sport :
" Overseeing the administration of the disciplinary system, which is applicable to all participants in the game (each club, player, competition, match official and any other person involved in the game in England is bound by the Rules) and the administration of refereeing throughout the game"
 
Donc là c’est une "commission indépendante" qui sanctionne les joueurs ou les clubs qui enfreignent le règlement de la FA...
 
La décision est visible ici
 
Grosso modo, le geste jugé abusif et/ou indécent et/ou insultant et/ou inapproprié, contrevient à la règle E3 de la FA...
 
 
Independent Regulatory Commission – summary of decision
 
1. This is a written statement of the decision of The FA Regulatory Commission (chaired by independent Counsel Christopher Quinlan QC, Thura KT Win, Peter Powell) that sat on 25 and 26 February 2014 to consider charges brought against the player Nicolas Anelka (FA Disciplinary Regulation 9.1).
 
2. Arising out of his conduct during the Barclays Premier League match between West Ham United FC and West Bromwich Albion FC on 28 December 2013 he was charged as follows :
a. In or around the 40th minute of the match he made a gesture (known as the ‘quenelle’) which was abusive and/or indecent and/or insulting and/or improper, contrary to FA Rule E3(1) ; and
b. That the misconduct was an "Aggravated Breach" as defined by FA Rule E3(2) in that it included a reference to ethnic origin and/or race and/or religion or belief.
 
3. He denied both charges.
 
4. The Regulatory Commission heard from the player, two expert witnesses and submissions from Leading Counsel for The FA and Nicolas Anelka.
 
5. Charge 1 - the Regulatory Commission found this Charge proved.
 
6. Charge 2 -
a. The Regulatory Commission found this Charge proved
b. So far as the basis for our finding on Charge 2 is concerned, we did not find that Nicolas Anelka is an Anti-Semite or that he intended to express or promote Anti-Semitism by his use of the quenelle.