The Champions League final between Paris Saint-Germain and Arsenal will be dissected for years, not only for the football on display but for the refereeing decisions that tilted the contest. Daniel Siebert, the German official entrusted with the biggest game in club football, found himself at the center of a storm after three controversial incidents. Saïd Ennjimi, the former FIFA referee and L’Equipe analyst, broke down each call with precision, offering clarity on what could have been a chaotic night for the officials.
The first major talking point erupted in the 16th minute. From a PSG corner, Arsenal’s Bukayo Saka, positioned deep inside his own penalty area, saw the ball strike his hand twice in quick succession. The stadium erupted in appeals, but Siebert waved play on. At full speed, it looked a clear infraction, but Ennjimi sided with the referee. “It’s not necessarily a penalty when a player touches the ball with his hand in the box,” he explained. “The key is whether the handball initiates an attacking move. In this case, Saka was simply trying to clear the danger; his arm was in a natural position, and he didn’t prevent a goalscoring opportunity. There was no logical reason to point to the spot.” The former official drew comparisons to João Neves’s similar incident in the semi-final against Bayern Munich, emphasizing consistency across the competition.
The drama intensified in the 62nd minute. Arsenal defender Cristhian Mosquera, already on a yellow card, lunged into a challenge on PSG’s electric winger Khvitcha Kvaratskhelia inside the box. It was a clear penalty, and Siebert immediately whistled. However, to the astonishment of the PSG bench and their global fanbase, Mosquera escaped a second yellow card. The Spanish centre-back had committed a foul that appeared to deny a goalscoring opportunity – a textbook cautionable offence – yet he remained on the pitch. Ennjimi addressed the fury head-on: “Mosquera was playing the ball. When a defender makes a genuine attempt to contest the ball, and the contact is more of a coming-together than a cynical foul, the referee can judge it as a footballing action rather than misconduct. He didn’t pull him back or trip him with no chance of winning the ball; he played the ball, albeit from behind. That’s why the yellow card wasn’t shown,” he reasoned.
The absence of a second booking proved pivotal. Had Mosquera been sent off, Arsenal would have faced more than 25 minutes plus extra time with ten men against a PSG side loaded with attacking talent. Instead, they reorganised and, despite conceding the penalty, preserved their structure. PSG’s Kvaratskhelia, who had been tormenting the Gunners’ defence, would have undoubtedly exploited the numerical advantage. The decision not to issue a red card kept Arsenal’s hopes alive and, many argue, altered the game’s trajectory.
A third contentious moment arrived in extra time. PSG full-back Nuno Mendes appeared to foul Noni Madueke in the area, yet again no penalty was awarded. While Ennjimi spent less time on this, he noted that the VAR review deemed the contact insufficient for a spot-kick. It capped a night of frustration for anyone seeking a black-and-white application of the laws.
The fallout from Siebert’s performance has reignited the perennial debate about top-level officiating. Ennjimi’s expert testimony, however, reminds us that the Laws of the Game are not robotic. Context, intent, and proximity matter. Saka’s handball was not a deliberate act; Mosquera’s challenge, though reckless, was a genuine play for the ball; Mendes’s contact was brushed aside as minimal. Each call required a split-second assessment of multiple criteria, and Ennjimi’s analysis suggests the referee got the key decisions correct.
For Arsenal, the benefits were tangible. Mosquera’s survival allowed Mikel Arteta’s side to see out the match without a reshuffle. For PSG, the sense of injustice will linger, particularly given the stakes. Kvaratskhelia expressed his disbelief at the time, but UEFA’s post-match report is expected to stand by the officials. The incident has already become a case study for refereeing seminars, with Ennjimi’s insights providing invaluable material.
The Champions League final, like many before it, delivered high drama. But the narrative will always circle back to these moments. They serve as a stark reminder that, even with VAR and the world’s best officials, the human element remains both beautiful and brutal. In the end, Ennjimi’s conclusion is a simple one: football is a contact sport, and not every foul is a sending-off. As the sport’s lawmakers continue to tweak the handball and foul regulations, this final will stand as a benchmark of complexity.
Based on reporting from L'Equipe.
