Madrid, May 6 (EFE).- The Supreme Court has upheld the six-year prison sentence against a veteran footballer, Heiner J.A.G, for assaulting another, Raúl Sánchez, who was left quadriplegic after receiving a kick to the neck during a soccer match in April 2014.

You may be interested in: Ohtani and Freeman punish Alcántara with home runs in Dodgers' victory over Marlins

The High Court has upheld the sentence imposed by the Provincial Court of Barcelona for a crime of injury, while also upholding the victim's appeal and agreeing to increase their compensation to a total of 768,777 euros (54,777 euros more), considering that the magistrates did not take into account that it was an intentional crime, which requires increasing the amount received in consideration of the seriousness of the case.

The court has also upheld the conviction of the organizing association of the competition, the Asociación de Fútbol Veteranos Maresme, as subsidiarily liable.

Una agresión en 2014

The assault occurred eleven years ago, on April 26, 2014, during a match in Badalona between ECUA Calella and Lloreda. The convicted person kicked the victim first and was sanctioned with a red card. After his expulsion, he insulted and shouted at the other footballer, telling him that he was going to kill him and, when the game stopped again, he entered the field and kicked him in the back of the neck, when the other player was going to help a teammate who had fallen.

As a result of this aggression, the soccer player suffered a herniated disc and a spinal cord injury that left him quadriplegic and in a wheelchair.

Documentary ’26 de abril- Play Again’

That case led to a public debate about violence in sports and after the assault, Raúl Sánchez starred in a documentary, 'April 26 - Play Again', to raise awareness against this violence.

The Supreme Court considers that what happened was not a 'game incident', but "an aggression with the intention to injure" since "the key lies in whether an athlete who goes to a playing field must assume the risk of a malicious aggression" and the answer is negative because "there is no assumption of the risk that another athlete will injure another, unless it is a fortuitous incident of the game".

Furthermore, it argues the statement that "the practice of sport cannot end up legitimizing that on a playing field there exists a kind of 'glass dome' where everything can be done with the intention of causing injury and with the pretense that criminal law looks the other way."

Regarding the conviction as subsidiarily civilly liable of the association that organized the match, the Supreme Court explains that it is the obligation of the organizers to guarantee a safe environment and prevent violent behavior and in this case the "prevention measures to avoid violence in sports events were omitted, from which an organizer and/or promoter cannot deviate or 'look the other way'"