Can a footballer go to prison for a tackle that ends a rival's life? It depends on one question: whether the action was part of the game or went beyond it. That is the boundary drawn by the Supreme Court, and it is the one that will determine what FC Andorra goalkeeper Jesús Owono may face following the death of CD Tenerife striker Jesús de Miguel.
De Miguel suffered a cardiorespiratory arrest after colliding with Owono, who was sent off. The match report, as it has been published, describes a challenge for the ball and a violent tackle. This article explains the legal framework and the possible scenarios.
Inside or outside the game
Football is a contact sport, and blows, falls and injuries happen. Criminal law does not step in in every case. In its judgment 379/2025 of 30 April, the Supreme Court distinguishes between two situations.
Inside the game. A collision, a challenge for the ball or an accidental incident. Each player accepts that risk by competing: it is what judges call “permitted risk”. Even if there is a foul, a card or a serious injury, the response is sporting (sanctions from the competition committee), not criminal.
Outside the game. An assault carried out on purpose to injure. Nobody accepts that an opponent will deliberately hurt them, and the Supreme Court rejects the idea that the pitch is a place where criminal law does not apply. Here, a sporting sanction does not replace a criminal one.
What decides the matter is intent, not the harm. A very serious injury may remain within the sporting sphere if it arose from an incident of the game, and a lesser injury may be a crime if it was caused on purpose. In that judgment, the Supreme Court upheld a six-year prison sentence for a veterans' football player who, after a kick, left an opponent with severe tetraparesis.
The middle ground: negligence
Negligence means acting without due care, without intending to cause the harm. Between the accident of play and the intentional assault lies the careless or disproportionate action, and here the courts are not uniform.
The Provincial Court of Seville (2025), following the Supreme Court's doctrine, holds that simple sporting negligence should be resolved in the disciplinary sphere. The Provincial Court of Murcia (7 January 2026), by contrast, upheld a conviction for injuries caused by gross negligence in a futsal match: two players were challenging for the ball with their arms interlocked, and one pulled free with a sudden tug that broke the other's humerus. The court considered that this force exceeded the permitted risk. It even saw indications that the defendant accepted the risk of causing injury (conditional intent).
What consequences does each case carry?
If it was an action proper to the game (a collision or a challenge for the ball of the kind that forms a normal part of a match), the response is sporting: a card and match suspensions. In this case, the RFEF Disciplinary Code provides for between one and three matches for violent actions involving risk, and up to twelve if they cause injuries of particular gravity. A civil claim or a claim against the insurer is also not ruled out.
If it went beyond what is proper to the game (for example, an intentional assault or clearly disproportionate force), criminal proceedings are opened. If there is a conviction, the outcome may be imprisonment or a fine, a criminal record and compensation for the family. The two routes are compatible: a sporting sanction does not prevent criminal proceedings, and the existence of a sporting sanction does not mean there is a crime.
What the match report says and why it is not enough
The fact that the referee describes a challenge for the ball favours Owono. It places the action, in principle, inside the game, where permitted risk applies and the usual response is sporting.
But it does not settle the question, for three reasons. The report also speaks of a violent tackle, and there was a sending-off: the referee saw a challenge for the ball, but also an excess. Moreover, the report records the referee's assessment and does not bind the criminal judge, who will decide on the basis of the footage, the witnesses and the experts. And case law does not stop at the name of the play: in the Murcia case there was also a challenge for the ball, and the force used was held to exceed the permitted risk.
That is why how the ball was contested will matter. It will be necessary to establish whether the action was directed at the ball or at the opponent's body, whether the ball was genuinely reachable, with what force and at what height the tackle was made, and what the goalkeeper could foresee at that moment.
What the goalkeeper could face
There are four possible outcomes, from least to most serious. The penalties are those set by the Criminal Code; the one actually imposed would depend on the facts the court declared proven.
- No crime. If the action was an incident of the game within the permitted risk, there would be only a sporting sanction. This would require the tackle to have been aimed at the ball and with force consistent with that aim.
- Homicide by less serious negligence (Art. 142.2 CP). A relevant lapse of care, but not a gross one. The penalty is a fine of 3 to 18 months. In principle it is prosecuted only if reported by the injured party.
- Homicide by gross negligence (Art. 142.1 CP). A serious breach of the most elementary duty of care, for example through clearly disproportionate force, provided that the death is a consequence of the blow. The penalty is imprisonment of 1 to 4 years.
- Intentional homicide (Art. 138.1 CP). The penalty is imprisonment of 10 to 15 years. It requires that the perpetrator knew his action could cause death with a high degree of probability and accepted that outcome anyway (conditional intent).
The evidence that will decide the case
The Supreme Court recalls that intent is inferred from the evidence, and the full recording of the play is the most useful item. There will be four blocks of evidence.
- Footage from every angle. It shows where the action was heading, whether the ball was reachable, and with what height, speed and force the contact arrived.
- The forensic medical report and the autopsy. They must clarify whether the cardiorespiratory arrest was caused by the impact or by another cause. Without that link there is no homicide, whether intentional or negligent, even if the tackle was against the rules.
- Witnesses. The referee, the assistants, both teams and the medical staff, on what they saw.
- Sports expert evidence. To assess whether the force was proportionate to the aim of playing the ball and what risk was foreseeable.
In conclusion
What is decisive is how the action is judged, not how serious the outcome was. If it was an incident of the game within the permitted risk, the matter would remain in the sporting sphere. If that risk was exceeded, the most plausible route is negligence, gross or less serious. Intentional homicide would be exceptional and would require evidence that is not currently on record. Everything depends on the footage and the forensic report, and until then the goalkeeper is innocent.
