Evangelos Marinakis has launched legal action against Crystal Palace following a controversial banner displayed by the club’s supporters during a Premier League match last season.
The Nottingham Forest owner has filed a libel lawsuit at the High Court in London against Crystal Palace and “persons unknown” over the banner, which became one of the most controversial moments of the growing rivalry between the two clubs.
The legal move represents a major escalation in the dispute and comes almost a year after the banner was displayed at Selhurst Park.
The banner showed Marinakis appearing to hold a gun to the head of Forest midfielder Morgan Gibbs-White.
It also contained a sarcastic message referring to a number of serious allegations concerning Marinakis, including claims relating to blackmail, match-fixing, drug trafficking and corruption.
Marinakis has denied wrongdoing in relation to those allegations.
Marinakis Takes Palace to Court
The legal action was filed in the High Court and names Crystal Palace as a defendant alongside “persons unknown”.
The lawsuit centres on the banner displayed by Palace supporters during the Premier League meeting between the clubs at Selhurst Park in August 2025.
The incident had already attracted the attention of the Football Association, which subsequently took action against Crystal Palace.
The FA eventually fined the club £50,000 for failing to prevent offensive behaviour from supporters.
Despite the passage of time, the controversy has now returned to the headlines in a much more serious form, with Marinakis pursuing the matter through the courts.
What Was On the Banner?
The banner was designed to mock Marinakis and the controversy surrounding his relationship with Forest and Palace.
It depicted the Greek businessman holding what appeared to be a gun against Gibbs-White’s head.
The imagery was connected to an increasingly bitter dispute between the two clubs, particularly following the midfielder’s transfer situation and the wider tensions surrounding their European football ambitions.
The banner also contained a sarcastic statement denying Marinakis’ involvement in several serious allegations.
Those allegations were not established facts, and Marinakis has consistently denied wrongdoing.
That distinction is important as the legal case develops.
The lawsuit is concerned with whether the material displayed about Marinakis was defamatory, rather than being a determination that any of the allegations referenced on the banner were true.
A Rivalry That Has Become Increasingly Bitter
The dispute between Forest and Palace has developed beyond what normally happens between Premier League clubs.
One of the major flashpoints came during the controversy over UEFA’s multi-club ownership regulations.
Crystal Palace had qualified for European football after winning the FA Cup, but their ownership situation created complications because of links involving Lyon and Eagle Football.
Forest, meanwhile, had their own European ambitions and became involved in the issue.
UEFA ultimately ruled that Palace would not participate in the Europa League and instead moved them into the Conference League, while Forest took the Europa League place.
That decision intensified the already difficult relationship between the clubs and provided further background to the hostility surrounding the banner.
Palace Were Already Punished
The latest legal action is not the first official consequence stemming from the banner.
The Football Association investigated the incident after it took place.
Crystal Palace were subsequently fined £50,000 in February after being found responsible for failing to prevent offensive behaviour by supporters.
That disciplinary action dealt with the club’s responsibilities, but Marinakis has now taken a separate route by pursuing a defamation claim.
The High Court proceedings therefore represent a different stage of the dispute.
Rather than being a football disciplinary matter, the case will focus on the legal issues surrounding the publication and display of the material about Marinakis.
Marinakis Has Denied the Allegations
The content of the banner referenced allegations that Marinakis has strongly rejected.
Reports surrounding the legal action stress that he has denied involvement in the criminal activities referenced by the supporters.
He has not been charged with the offences referred to on the banner.
The wording and imagery used by the supporters were deliberately provocative, but Marinakis’ decision to pursue a defamation claim demonstrates the seriousness with which he views the material.
The legal case could now force the controversy back into the spotlight and potentially bring greater scrutiny to the events that led to the banner being displayed.
Neither Crystal Palace nor Marinakis’ legal representatives had publicly commented on the lawsuit at the time of the latest reports.
The Morgan Gibbs-White Connection
Gibbs-White’s presence on the banner was also significant.
The Forest midfielder was at the centre of a transfer saga involving Crystal Palace, which added another layer to the rivalry between the clubs.
The image of Marinakis appearing to hold a weapon to Gibbs-White’s head was therefore designed to reference the tension surrounding the player’s situation.
What might initially have been viewed as an extremely provocative piece of fan artwork has now developed into a legal dispute involving one of the most powerful figures in English football.
That development has ensured the banner continues to have consequences long after it was removed from the stands.
What Happens Next?
The legal proceedings will now determine how the dispute progresses.
Marinakis is seeking legal redress over the material displayed by Palace supporters, while the involvement of “persons unknown” means the case is not simply a dispute between two football clubs.
The court process could ultimately examine the circumstances surrounding the creation and display of the banner, as well as the responsibility of those involved.
For Crystal Palace, the issue is another unwelcome chapter in what has already been a turbulent relationship with Forest.
The club have already faced an FA punishment over the incident, and the High Court action adds another dimension.
For Marinakis, meanwhile, the case represents a decision to take the dispute beyond football’s disciplinary structures and into the legal system.
Another Chapter in the Forest-Palace Feud
The timing is also notable.
Both clubs are preparing for another Premier League season, meaning the rivalry is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.
Forest and Palace are scheduled to meet again in October, potentially creating another highly anticipated meeting between the sides.
By then, the legal action could still be hanging over the fixture and adding another layer of intrigue to their next encounter.
The feud has already involved European football, ownership disputes, transfer tensions and disciplinary action.
Now it has entered the courtroom.
Marinakis’ lawsuit ensures that the controversial banner from last season will continue to generate headlines well beyond the terraces of Selhurst Park.
The key issue now is whether the legal proceedings will lead to further consequences for Crystal Palace or those responsible for the banner.
Whatever happens, the dispute has developed into far more than ordinary football rivalry.
A banner displayed by supporters during a Premier League match has now resulted in a High Court defamation claim, with one of English football’s most prominent club owners seeking legal action over the way he was portrayed.
And with Forest and Palace set to meet again later this year, the latest development could ensure that the controversy remains one of the biggest talking points surrounding their rivalry.
