Chris Sutton believes Arsenal were left in a far weaker position than they deserved following controversial refereeing decisions in their Champions League semi-final clash against Atletico Madrid.
The former Premier League striker argued that key moments in the game unfairly shifted the balance of the tie ahead of the decisive second leg at the Emirates Stadium.
The match has continued to spark widespread debate, particularly around two major decisions that went against Arsenal. Sutton acknowledged that Arsenal were not at their absolute best in attack but insisted that officiating calls played a decisive role in shaping the outcome.
“People can argue the merits, but everybody watching the game, you can talk about Arsenal’s display and what they lacked and what they didn’t do,” Sutton said. “But Arsenal would be in an unbelievable position going into the tie at the Emirates next week, and now they have a lot of work to do. And I think that’s unfair on them, I really, really do.”
Sutton suggested that while Arsenal could have been sharper in the final third, the sense of injustice surrounding the decisions was difficult to ignore. He stressed that the team had genuine reasons to feel aggrieved after the final whistle.
“They feel hard done by, and they have been hard done by. People can talk about the Arsenal performance. Were they good enough in the final third? Probably not,” he explained.
Despite his criticism of the refereeing, Sutton also gave credit to Atletico Madrid’s performance, particularly after the break. He noted that the Spanish side improved significantly in the second half and deserved recognition for their response during key phases of the game.
“I thought Atletico Madrid were excellent in the second half and deserved something from the game,” Sutton added. “Having said all that, there were two shocking decisions which went against Arsenal.”
One of the main incidents Sutton addressed was the handball decision involving Ben White. He argued that the contact sequence did not justify the call, pointing out that the ball first struck the defender’s shin before making contact with his arm.
“I didn’t think it was a handball by Ben White because the ball deflected off his shin first, and his arm is out a little bit, but the fact is, it came off his shin first,” Sutton explained.
He also discussed the overturned penalty involving Eberechi Eze, stating that visible contact should have been enough to uphold the original on-field decision. Sutton highlighted the reaction of players as an important indicator, noting that Atletico Madrid players did not protest strongly during that particular incident.
“And Hancko, clumsy as you like, steps on part of Eze’s foot, and they don’t really protest — I always think that’s the biggest tell from players. They did for the Gyokeres penalty really vehemently, got in the referee’s face,” he said.
Sutton further criticised the referee’s decision to overturn the penalty after reviewing the pitchside monitor, arguing that stronger authority should have been shown in maintaining the original call.
“When you see the referee go to the monitor, you know what’s going to happen, but I would have liked to see the referee be stronger in that moment. He gave it in real time, and from everything I see from the monitor, there was contact on Eze’s foot.”
In Sutton’s view, the penalty decision could have significantly altered the trajectory of the tie, potentially giving Arsenal a crucial advantage heading into the second leg in London.
“The penalty should have been awarded, and Arsenal should be going back to the Emirates in a much stronger position,” he concluded.
