Antoine Semenyo briefly became motionless after allegedly hearing a racist insult from a Liverpool supporter during a match at Anfield, prosecutors told Liverpool Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday. Mark Mogan, 47, denies racially aggravated behaviour, and the trial remains ongoing.
The allegation concerns Bournemouth’s visit for the Premier League season opener on August 15 last year. Semenyo, who has since joined Manchester City, was preparing for a throw-in around half an hour into the game when the incident allegedly occurred.
The hearing brought together the prosecution’s account, statements from nearby supporters and two brief video recordings. Those elements overlap in places, but the published reports also reveal differences that matter when separating what witnesses observed from what prosecutors allege was said.
The allegation and the response
Prosecutor Simon Jones told the court that Mogan directed a racist insult at Semenyo from nearby, before addressing him again with further offensive language. According to the prosecution, the player paused in disbelief and was visibly distressed.
The court heard that Semenyo subsequently informed referee Anthony Taylor when play next stopped. Mogan was taken out of the ground during the interval.
Jones also described an allegation that Mogan removed chewing gum from his mouth and threw it towards Semenyo, making contact with the player’s shorts. The prosecution presented this as part of the same confrontation.
Mogan gave police a different account when interviewed the next day. He acknowledged urging Semenyo to get on with the throw-in, but alleged that the footballer responded with an insult about his disability. He also said he discarded the gum on the ground rather than throwing it at the player.
The prosecution disputed the truthfulness of that account. It remains a contested allegation, not a finding by the court. Mogan, a wheelchair user, attended the hearing with an intermediary.
Where the accounts differ
Both supplied reports describe a statement from Liverpool supporter Neil Sherratt, who occupied a neighbouring position to Mogan in the Main Stand’s accessible seating area. Sherratt said he saw Mogan move towards the playing surface and heard him urge Semenyo to take the throw-in.
His account supports part of the sequence described by the prosecution: an approach towards the pitch, words directed at the player and an apparent reaction of surprise. However, the extracts published from his statement do not attribute the alleged racist words to him as something he personally heard.
There is also a small but important difference over Semenyo’s response. The prosecution’s account, as reported, described him saying nothing back. Sherratt believed the player made a brief questioning reply. That does not itself resolve whether racist abuse occurred, but it is a distinction that should not disappear when the accounts are summarised.
Another supporter, Nicholas Collins, described Mogan’s behaviour afterwards and alleged that he threatened violence against police if they approached. That evidence concerns the aftermath. It should not be treated as a substitute for establishing the words used during the original exchange.
What the footage can establish
The court watched two short recordings, with Jones characterising Mogan’s demeanour as angry. Neither report specifies whether the footage contains sufficiently clear audio to establish the alleged racist language independently.
That omission matters. Images may help establish positioning, movement and the order of events without settling precisely what was said. Equally, a prosecutor’s description of footage is an argument about the evidence, rather than the court’s conclusion about it.
The gum allegation has a similarly clear point of dispute: witnesses were said to have seen it strike Semenyo, while Mogan told police he threw it down. The published material does not explain exactly what the recordings show on that question.
A case still being heard
Semenyo was expected to give evidence remotely later on Wednesday. Neither supplied report includes that testimony, so neither provides a complete account of the hearing or any outcome.
For football, the reporting highlights the immediate role of a player’s complaint to a referee and the potential importance of nearby spectators in documenting an incident. But the central issue here is evidential, not sporting form: what was said, what each witness could hear and see, and how those accounts fit together.
Those questions remain for the court. The allegation is serious, the defendant denies the charge, and the available reports describe a trial still in progress.