Bayern Appeal Rejected as Díaz Suspension Stands

Bayern Munich have failed in their attempt to overturn the suspension handed to winger Luis Díaz after the German Football Association’s sports court rejected the club’s appeal.

The decision means the Bayern forward will still serve a one-match Bundesliga suspension following his dismissal during the league clash with Bayer Leverkusen.

The controversy stems from Bayern’s recent Bundesliga meeting with Leverkusen, where Díaz received a second yellow card and was sent off late in the match.

The Colombian attacker had been penalised for simulation inside the penalty area, a decision that immediately sparked debate and frustration within the Bayern camp.

Following the match, the Munich club formally lodged an appeal with the German Football Association in a bid to overturn the automatic suspension.

However, the governing body’s sports court reviewed the case and dismissed Bayern’s protest, ruling that the referee’s decision would stand.

As reported by FCBinside, the verdict was delivered through a single-judge procedure, with the appeal rejected as unfounded and the one-game ban confirmed.

The chairman of the DFB Sports Court, Stephan Oberholz, explained the decision as follows: “When asked, referee Dingert stated that he had noticed that player Diaz had taken off while sprinting into the penalty area without the Leverkusen goalkeeper being involved, which he had judged to be an unsportsmanlike swallow. Although he had only noticed the subsequent hit on the foot after viewing the video footage after the match, even taking this into account, player Diaz had sought and found contact beforehand, so his decision was not completely wrong.“

Oberholz also added: “The fact that the referee’s decision would probably not have been made in the same way, taking into account the television images, is not relevant for the sports court’s assessment. The decisive factor is that the process is a factual decision that can only be corrected if it is serious, obvious and beyond any doubt objectively incorrect. That is not the case here.“