Contents
Methodology
Introduction
Background: Sports Media Under Censorship
Part I: The Legal Framework for Interference in Sports Media
Part II: Mechanisms of Repression in Sports Media
Conclusion and Recommendations
Methodology
This paper relies on news reports, media coverage, and official statements published on the website of the Supreme Council for Media Regulation (SCMR), including statements by representatives of both the Media Professionals Syndicate and the SCMR concerning cases in which sports media professionals were suspended or barred from appearing in the media. The paper also examines Law No. 93 of 2016[1] governing the Media Professionals Syndicate and Law No. 180 of 2018 regulating the press, media, and the SCMR. In addition, the paper reviews the Media Code of Ethics and the Professional Code of Conduct issued by the Syndicate, as well as the Sports Press and Media Code adopted by the SCMR.
The cases documented in this paper span the period from August 2018 to the end of June 2026. It is important to note that no official database systematically publishes such decisions. As a result, the paper relies on decisions made available through the SCMR’s official website, where published, as well as secondary media sources. This inevitably limits the comprehensiveness of the documentation. To mitigate these limitations, the paper gives priority to incidents that were either corroborated by multiple sources or accompanied by official statements.
Introduction
In the Egyptian sports scene, particularly in football, the action on the pitch is not the only thing that captures fans’ interest; there is a parallel arena on television screens and satellite channels that documents behind-the-scenes developments and scrutinizes the performance of players, coaching staff, and club boards. Since 2018, however, sports journalists, presenters, and analysts have increasingly faced suspensions and bans from appearing in the media. Although sports media is often regarded as a space far from politics and less sensitive, it has transformed during the last decade into one of the media sectors most vulnerable to suspension and banning decisions. This trend has unfolded in a landscape originally characterized by a multiplicity of voices and loyalties, where commentators are often perceived as being aligned with particular clubs or football authorities, such as the Egyptian Football Association and the Egyptian Professional Clubs Association. In such a polarized setting, critical commentary can quickly trigger complaints from parties claiming to have been harmed by media coverage.
As the FIFA World Cup is currently underway, media reports have highlighted a recent incident that illustrates the concerns examined in this paper. Egypt national team coach Hossam Hassan,[2] through his legal counsel,[3] filed a formal complaint with the SCMR against former player and television analyst Reda Abdel Aal. This incident serves as a clear example of what this paper seeks to highlight. The complaint followed comments made by Abdel Aal on the television programme El Primo, broadcast on TEN TV, in which he criticized Mohamed Salah’s substitution during Egypt’s opening World Cup match and described the decision as ‘a conspiracy against the national team’s captain and international star aimed at bringing him into line’. The complaint resulted in the SCMR’s Complaints Committee summoning a lawyer representing TEN TV to investigate the incident[4].
Furthermore, television host Nashaat El-Dihy invited Abdel Aal onto his show to urge him to retract his remarks, citing concern for the national team’s interests. This directly influenced the analyst’s stance, prompting him to backtrack and claim it may have been merely a slip of the tongue. Consequently, a football debate over a player substitution morphed into a matter of administrative accountability.
The mechanisms of repression in sports media rely on two institutions working together or in parallel: the Media Professionals Syndicate, established under Law No. 93 of 2016, and the SCMR, regulated by Law No. 180 of 2018[5]. What distinguishes this Egyptian framework is that the SCMR together with the Media Professionals Syndicate do not merely suspend media professionals from appearing on a specific television channel, but also extend the ban to any media outlet within the country, based on the Media Code of Ethics, the Professional Code of Conduct, the Sanctions and Measures Regulation issued under Decision No. 16 of 2019, as well as media standards and specialized press coverage codes[6].
It is clearly evident that the penalty becomes compounded. Restrictions are no longer confined to television and radio appearances but increasingly extend to personal digital platforms, including YouTube, X, and Instagram. Individuals may be ordered to remove audiovisual content or face referral to the Public Prosecution. Regulatory decisions are often framed as responses to professional misconduct, citing violations such as “breaching the code of ethics”, “violating the code of conduct”, or “failing to regularize legal status”.
As a result, the circle of violations has broadened to include commentary on matches, or expressing an opinion regarding a club or its president. The impact extends beyond those directly targeted to their colleagues, as the sports field becomes a sphere for self-censorship and the restriction of freedom of expression. This paper attempts to examine how talking about football has become a taboo subject in the media domain, how sports media has been affected by the repressive legal structure, and the implications of this phenomenon for the sports media landscape in Egypt.
Background: Sports Media Under Censorship
For many years, Egypt has maintained extensive restrictions on broadcast media. Within this tightly controlled environment, sports programming remained one of the few spaces where relatively spontaneous and unscripted debate could still take place on television. This, however, did not last long; following the enactment of the Media Regulation Law in 2018 and the introduction of specialized media codes in 2019, a noticeable shift occurred in the margins of freedom even within sports programmes, initiating a series of suspensions and ban decisions that recur on a near-monthly basis, targeting presenters, analysts, and former athletes participating in these programmes.
The monitored period between August 2018 and June 2026 witnessed decisions to ban media appearances, suspend sports broadcasts, and revoke channel licenses, in addition to the pursuit of personal accounts and blogs in cyberspace. The SCMR has relied on two principal mechanisms to enforce these restrictions. The first is the Complaints Committee, initially chaired by journalist Gamal Shawky in 2017 [7] and reconstituted in 2024 under the leadership of Essam El Amir[8]. This mechanism allows clubs, institutions, and individuals to submit complaints directly to the SCMR when they claim to have been harmed by content aired in sports programmes. The second mechanism is the establishment of the “Sports Media Performance Control” committee, whose task is to monitor sports content daily in all newspapers and media outlets[9], issue a report on any matters it considers violations, and then refer them to the SCMR to take the appropriate decision regarding them. Where a violation is deemed to have occurred, sanctions may be imposed on individual presenters, programme hosts, sports programmes, or, in some cases, entire television channels.
Part I: The Legal Framework for Interference in Sports Media
The SCMR relies on a set of laws, regulations, and codes to issue disciplinary sanctions against sports media professionals, programmes, and the media outlets they work for. Article 65 of the Egyptian Constitution guarantees freedom of thought and opinion, stating that “freedom of thought and opinion is guaranteed. Every person has the right to express his or her opinion through speech, writing, images, or any other means of expression and publication”. As such, any restriction on this right should remain exceptional and narrowly construed.
Articles 94 and 95 of Law No. 180 of 2018 on the Regulation of the Press and Media grant the SCMR the authority to “establish a list of administrative and financial sanctions and measures that may be imposed on press institutions, national press institutions, media institutions, and public media institutions in the event of a violation of the provisions of this law”. This regulation includes a number of broad sanctions starting with compelling the removal of content published on a media outlet, whether visual or audio, moving to granting the SCMR the authority to determine the value of financial fines, up to banning the publication or broadcast of any media material for a period of time, and the right of the SCMR to revoke the license for practicing media or electronic broadcasting in specific cases.
Article 19 of the Press and Media Regulation Law also expands the scope of monitoring to include personal accounts, websites, and blogs, with 5,000 followers or more, treating them as media outlets subject to the provisions of the law. As a result, when the SCMR bans a sports commentator or presenter from appearing in the media, this extends to the confiscation of their right to speak through personal accounts on platforms such as X, YouTube, or Facebook, transforming this penalty from a regulatory measure resulting from a violation on a screen or radio channel into a form of comprehensive exclusion from public appearance.
Under Article 94 of Law No. 180 of 2018, the legislature also authorized the SCMR to develop “professional and ethical codes and standards”. Thus, the SCMR has become the entity that drafts the “codes” and written norms embodying professional principles, monitors press and media performance in light of them, and determines disciplinary sanctions for their violation.
Pursuant to this authority, the SCMR issued its “Media Standards and Codes for Newspapers, Television Channels, and Dramatic Productions” in 2018, accompanied by a dedicated chapter outlining sanctions. The section concerning sports media consisted of 28 provisions. In 2019, the SCMR followed this with the publication of its “Specialized Coverage Codes”,[10] dedicating Article ‘I’ to sports journalism and media, which consisted of 17 points. The stated purpose of both documents was to ensure compliance with professional ethics and standards while regulating media performance.
The two codes, whether the general media code or the one specific to sports coverage, are highly similar, as they contain some words and phrases that lack precise definitions or measurable criteria. Hence begins the problem of misusing these provisions to impose sanctions. For example, Article 2 of the Sports Media Code of Conduct states: “Sports media professionals must preserve the excitement, vitality, and enjoyment of sporting events, which preserve sport’s status and positive impacts capable of attracting broad segments of society, without slipping into inciting fanaticism, any religious or sectarian chauvinism, encouraging violence, disturbing security and peace among fans, or violating any of the rules contained in the laws and this code”. This highlights the use of the phrase “disturbing security and peace among fans”. Yet the code provides no definition of it or any specific controls, granting broad discretion to the committees responsible for monitoring, investigating, and penalizing sports professionals.
Similarly, Article 25 of the Code prohibits the publication of false news and misleading advertisements without defining what constitutes “false news” for the purposes of enforcement.
As for the sanctions regulation, the SCMR has continuously used a number of its articles to punish workers in the sports media field, applying sanctions such as the temporary suspension of broadcasting for violating programs, suspension of sections or pages that committed the violation, banning writing for the section or page, and license revocation.
The Specialized Coverage Codes repeated some phrases that cannot be controlled or regulated, such as “disturbing peace and security among fans” and “threatening societal peace”, as did Article 5 of the Sports Code, which refers to “spreading frustration”. This does not align with the competitive and controversial nature of sports, thereby expanding the discretionary power of the administration in determining the scope of professional violations.
In most cases, the act is measured by the extent to which the complaining party or the monitoring committee is annoyed by the coverage. This must be viewed in light of the many cases in the sports sphere where committee decisions were driven by influence and affiliations. Consequently, the sports media arena transforms into a place dominated by fear and self-censorship, where everyone prefers silence and avoiding the expression of different opinions that would affect their presence on screen.
This is evidenced by what happened on the “Malab On” program on May 3, 2026. When they were discussing a controversial refereeing case, the program’s host sarcastically replied, “I can’t respond, because if you get suspended, you’ll get suspended alone”.[11] Zamalek player Ahmed Eid also added, “How can I respond? I can’t. I’m just trying to lighten the mood”, in a clear indication of the impact of these rules on stifling opinions and inciting fear among participants in sports media.
Looking at international experiences in the legal regulation of media, regulation in the United Kingdom is entrusted to a single independent authority, Ofcom[12], which exercises its powers under the Communications Act 2003. Content regulation is governed through a unified legal framework known as the Ofcom Broadcasting Code[13]. The Code applies across all forms of broadcasting—not sports coverage alone—and focuses on principles such as accuracy, due impartiality, the protection of minors, and the prohibition of hate speech. The code affirms that “due impartiality” rules support the editorial independence of broadcasters and the public’s right to access a diversity of viewpoints, including controversial opinions that challenge dominant narratives.
The fundamental difference in this experience is that the “due impartiality” rules stipulated in the code were set specifically to protect the editorial independence of broadcasters and preserve the public’s right to receive diverse viewpoints; including shocking opinions or those representing “intellectual minority currents” that challenge the prevailing discourse, as long as they do not slip into incitement. This legal characterization illustrates how media regulation can operate as a safeguard to protect pluralism and intellectual diversity, rather than turning it into an administrative tool for imposing unilateral discourses and formulating sanctions that restrict freedom of expression. In the British system, responsibility falls on the licensed channel, and license revocation, which is the most severe sanction, is limited to exceptional circumstances.
At the broader European level, the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD)[14] regulates this sector in all European Union countries. This directive establishes comprehensive principles for the protection of minors and combating incitement to hatred, affirms the independence of national regulatory bodies, and does not contain provisions specific to sports. More importantly, the directive obligates Member States to promote self-regulation and co-regulation, and urges workers in this sector to draft voluntary codes of conduct under judicial supervision. The directive affirms that this self-regulation, within national legal frameworks, is the preferred approach.
A systematic review of broadcasting suspension and platform blocking decisions in Europe, accurately documented by major legal references such as the European Audiovisual Observatory’s database (IRIS Merlin) and the Mapping Media Freedom platform, reveals that in Europe, suspending broadcasts or revoking licenses is a highly serious and rare measure. Usually, states do not resort to this measure except in the event of a grave danger threatening their security, or in the case of combating media disinformation during war, and there are no examples similar to what is happening in Egypt to sports media.
Part II: Mechanisms of Repression in Sports Media
Identifying patterns is one of the most important research tools. Isolated incidents do not, by themselves, establish the existence of a broader phenomenon. However, when cases display similar procedures and result in comparable sanctions, they move beyond the realm of “individual incidents” and reveal what can be described as “structured patterns”. The pattern in this context means the repeated use of the same disciplinary measure periodically and continuously by the SCMR and its affiliated committees between 2018 and mid-2026. This regular repetition negates the idea that these decisions are merely ad hoc responses to isolated incidents; rather, they confirm that we are facing a clear approach of restriction pursued by the executive authorities under the pretext of ‘reforming and developing sports media’. Four principal patterns of restriction on sports media can be drawn, as follows:
- Pattern 1: Banning Media Appearances
The pattern of banning media appearances is the most frequently used disciplinary measure imposed by the SCMR. This pattern does not aim to punish the institution or the channel, nor even to block content; rather, its danger lies in the fact that it completely isolates the targeted individual from the media scene for a period of time, which threatens their professional future.
The majority of the banning incidents documented in Egypt during the monitored period targeted sports commentator Medhat Shalaby. He is known for his commentary, which carries a sarcastic and comedic tone and occasionally includes “quips” or “jokes” that may carry sexual undertones. This penalty first struck the analyst and commentator in 2019, when Tarek Saada (Head of the Media Syndicate) decided to ban him from commentating on matches for the remainder of the football season. According to the Syndicate Head’s statement at the time, the penalty was due to “professional and ethical violations during his commentary on the match, breaching the Media Code of Ethics and the Professional Code of Conduct for Media Professionals”[15]. This occurred after he used words such as “groom”, “wedding”, and describing the net as “no longer a virgin”, which provoked the ire of both the Syndicate and the SCMR.
The issue recurred in 2020, specifically during Shalaby’s commentary on a match between Al Ahly and Zamalek[16]. The SCMR opened an investigation into Shalaby for his use of certain terms carrying sexual innuendos, such as “insert the pigeon” and “client”. At the time, Tarek Saada commented again that the Media Observatory—which, as we discovered, plays a censorship role over sports content—had confirmed the existence of violations warranting investigation, alongside several complaints filed against the commentator.
Sports presenter Hany Hathout has also been subjected to repeated appearance bans across different television channels and in connection with different incidents. The incidents began in 2022[17] when he was subjected to his first appearance ban while presenting the “El Match” program. The Media Professionals Syndicate issued a statement at the time to clarify that the penalty was due to his violation of the Media Code of Ethics in the Duties Section, Article (5), and the Professional Code of Conduct, Article (9), as they deemed that the presence of altercations and bickering falls under “misuse of publishing and broadcasting spaces”, and they imposed a penalty banning him from appearing for two weeks.
The decision to ban Hany Hathout from appearing and to suspend his programme followed a formal complaint submitted by Zamalek SC after Hathout aired segments criticizing the club’s management and commenting on refereeing decisions.
A second incident took place in 2026[18], when Al Ahly SC filed a complaint against Hathout with the SCMR. The complaint related to comments he had made concerning the distribution of responsibilities within Al Ahly’s leadership structure and allegations that club president Mahmoud El Khatib was being marginalized. The SCMR concluded that these remarks amounted to disparagement of the club president and imposed a 21-day appearance ban on Hathout, in addition to a fine of EGP 100,000 on the television channel.
It should be noted that the disciplinary sanction of banning media appearances was not included in the sanctions regulation issued by the SCMR. The legal problem is not limited to the SCMR overstepping its jurisdiction, but also includes the conflict and overlap of jurisdictions with specialized professional syndicates such as the Media Professionals Syndicate. In practice, a form of dual punishment has emerged. Professional licensing requirements and Syndicate registration procedures are frequently used as additional disciplinary tools, effectively compensating for the absence of a clear legal basis authorizing personal appearance bans, as has happened with a number of sports media professionals when the SCMR and the Media Syndicate wish to tighten their grip on them. The case of Hany Hathout serves as an example of this; in addition to regulatory measures imposed by the SCMR, the Syndicate issued Decision No. 5 of 2022[19] prohibiting his appearance in the media, citing, among other reasons, his failure to regularize his professional status with the Syndicate.
The penalty of a ‘personal appearance ban’ effectively serves as a tool for character assassination and professional isolation for the media professional, guest, or analyst. This punishment transcends its declared objective of “combating fanaticism” and reforming sports media discourse, transforming instead into a tool of intimidation and repression against all professionals in the field.
- Pattern 2: Suspension of Sports Programs Broadcasting
This pattern of prohibition is even more oppressive than banning appearances, as it punishes the entire crew working on the sports media product, denying them their right to express themselves and their opinions freely. Below are several examples of programs that were suspended by the SCMR. Egypt witnessed the initial application of this penalty in 2018, and the most widely publicized incident at the time was the suspension of the Malaab El Sherif program on the LTC channel[20], hosted by presenter Ahmed El Sherif. This is the same presenter who had previously been banned from appearing following a decision by the SCMR. The ban was due to his hosting of the then-president of Zamalek SC, Mortada Mansour, who used the interview to criticize several journalists for their bias and attack individuals affiliated with Al Ahly SC—a common occurrence in this type of rivalry.
The same year, the programme Kora Kol Youm (“Football Every Day”)[21] was suspended on multiple occasions before eventually being taken off the air entirely. The authorities justified the decision by alleging violations of professional standards and the media code of ethics. Another programme, Masa’ Pyramids (“Pyramids Evening”)[22], was later suspended on the grounds that it had allegedly “incited discord” and violated prevailing social values. The pace of bans continued to escalate, and the entry of media codes into force in 2021 contributed to increased censorship of programmes.
In March 2025, the SCMR ordered Al Shams TV to pay a fine of EGP 100,000[23], suspended the programme Malab Al Shams (“Al Shams Stadium”)[24] for one month, and prohibited presenter Ahmed El Sherif from appearing in the media for the same period. The SCMR also issued a warning that the channel’s broadcasting license could be revoked if similar violations were repeated. During the same month, the programme Hares Al Ahly (“Al Ahly’s Goalkeeper”)[25] was suspended, and sports presenter Ahmed Shobier was banned from appearing on the channel for one month. The SCMR additionally imposed a fine of EGP 100,000 following a complaint filed by Zamalek SC, which accused Shobier of deliberately inciting hostility against the club and its management. “Malab El Bulldozer” (“The Bulldozer’s Stadium”)[26], hosted by Magdy Abdel Ghany, was also suspended, while the legal representative of TEN TV was summoned due to remarks made by guests during a programme hosted by sports presenter Islam Sadeq.
Pattern 3: Revocation of Sports Channel Licenses
In addition to suspending programmes, there has been an expansion in the use of the license revocation penalty. This is a penalty that periodically threatens the channel’s very existence, based on allegations determined by the same authority issuing the aforementioned sanctions. The warning issued to Al Shams TV in 2025 that its license could be revoked if violations were repeated was not an isolated case. Similar measures had been taken previously, including a warning to LTC that its license could be withdrawn in the event of further violations, before the channel was later suspended for two weeks[27].
Several channels have faced threats of license revocation and, in some cases, have been subjected to temporary broadcasting suspensions ranging from a few days to several weeks. These channels include Al Ahly TV, Zamalek TV, Al Shams TV, Al Hadath Al Youm, LTC, and TEN. The danger of repeating this pattern of punishment lies in the concept of ‘collective suppression of the right to expression’. Beyond harming an entire crew and besieging their opinions, the penalty extends to punishing audiences by restricting their constitutional right to receive information and knowledge. The suspension and closure of programmes constitutes a clear form of suppressing pluralism. Furthermore, it strips sports programmes of the concept of being a public space for discussion, transforming them into a rented space subject to specific conditions and red lines that cannot be crossed to ensure the programme remains on air.
This pattern also introduces an additional layer of censorship concerning the owners of these channels, who do not wish to sacrifice their investments. Consequently, they create internal monitoring mechanisms to avoid any issues that might upset advertisers or result in them paying financial fines.
- Pattern 4: Monitoring Personal Accounts and Blogs
This pattern is the most advanced compared to its predecessors, as it transcends the bounds of channels and institutions affiliated with the SCMR, extending into cyberspace in general. Although this trend began to emerge in 2023, it has intensified recently through increased scrutiny in pursuing journalists, media figures, and sports personalities via monitoring their personal pages and blogs on social media platforms. Such measures have included referring them to investigation, forcing them to remove content, and even blocking their personal pages.
One example is the case of journalist Islam Sadeq in February 2026. The Complaints Committee at the SCMR summoned the person responsible for managing Sadeq’s personal Facebook page[28] following a complaint submitted by a lawyer acting on behalf of Egypt national team head coach Hossam Hassan and team director Ibrahim Hassan. The complaint alleged that content published on the page concerning the national team’s technical staff violated the standards, regulations, and codes issued by the SCMR. Significantly, the summons did not concern a television programme or a licensed media outlet, but rather content published on a journalist’s personal social media page.
Sports analyst and media personality Ahmed Hossam “Mido” has also been subjected to suspension and appearance bans on several occasions as a result of controversial statements, unusual in the media, characterized by sharp criticism or satire. For example, on 19 January 2026, the SCMR ordered that Mido be barred from appearing on any media outlet[29] pending the completion of an investigation. The decision followed comments he made during a podcast interview with journalist Abu El Maati Zaki, in which he discussed Egypt’s African Cup of Nations victories between 2006 and 2008 and suggested that the national team’s coach believed in certain superstitions, which he implied had contributed to those achievements.
On 22 January, the SCMR instructed all media outlets not to host Mido for a period of two weeks, accusing him of diminishing those achievements and implying that they had been attained through non-sporting means, which is a new type of accusation that defies logic. This case illustrates how the SCMR’s monitoring activities extend to digital content. Nevertheless, the SCMR treated Mido’s comments as falling within its regulatory authority, reflecting its application of Article 19 of Law No. 180 of 2018 on the Regulation of the Press and Media, which extended the SCMR’s jurisdiction to certain digital accounts and platforms with more than 5,000 followers. Rather than treating the remarks as personal opinions expressed outside licensed media platforms, the SCMR ordered all media outlets not to host him. As a result, the sanction extended beyond the content at issue and was directed at the individual himself. The Mido case therefore illustrates the broader debate surrounding the limits of regulatory authority and the extent to which certain measures are consistent with constitutional guarantees protecting freedom of opinion and expression.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The crisis extends beyond the imposed sanctions to a system of close monitoring of every small detail concerning sports media, reaching the point of issuing decisions regarding programme durations, studio analysis segments, and the cancellation of refereeing segments due to the controversy generated by discussions of refereeing decisions after each match.
Thus, the SCMR issued Decision No. 28 of 2024 prohibiting the broadcast of sports programmes after midnight[30], in addition to limiting the duration of studio analysis programmes to a maximum of one hour, and finally banning any sports programmes from presenting a refereeing segment to analyze referees’ performances and controversial decisions. The SCMR did not clarify the reasons for the decision. The SCMR subsequently suspended the implementation of this decision on two occasions. The first was in 2025 during the Arab Championship[31], and the second during coverage of the current 2026 World Cup[32]. The SCMR exempted both tournaments from the ban on broadcasting after midnight, and from the one-hour maximum duration for pre-match studio analysis programmes, in addition to allowing refereeing segments to be conducted normally.
This reveals a glaring contradiction and underscores a deeper phenomenon regarding the tolerance for criticism and debate. If technical and refereeing debates are directed at non-Egyptian national teams or referees, a higher ceiling of media freedom may be permitted. This is a stark example of double standards and confirms the tight security grip on domestically targeted media, even in the sports domain.
This paper has documented a trajectory that began in 2018 with sanctions targeting individual media figures and gradually expanded to encompass entire programmes and media platforms. Together, these measures form an integrated system built on a legal framework that grants administrative authorities broad sanctioning powers, professional codes containing vague and open-ended provisions that can be readily invoked as grounds for punishment, and monitoring committees dedicated to overseeing sports media content.
The central conclusion of this paper is that what is taking place in sports media cannot be understood simply as “professional regulation”, as the responsible authorities often present it. Rather, it represents a re-engineering of one of the last remaining spaces in which televised and broadcast debate could take place. Sports content—particularly football-related content—is primarily intended for entertainment. Yet it has increasingly become subject to the same tools of repression and control that have long been applied to political and news media.
Accordingly, this paper calls on the Egyptian authorities to:
- End the practice of imposing media appearance bans by the SCMR and the Media Professionals Syndicate, given the absence of a clear legal basis for such sanctions in either the Press and Media Regulation Law or the applicable sanctions regulations.
- Ensure that the Media Professionals Syndicate prioritizes defending the rights of media professionals to express their views freely. The Syndicate should refrain from participating in disciplinary measures against media professionals and instead provide defense teams to support them when they face investigation or accountability.
- Encourage media institutions and television channels to refrain from imposing pre-emptive suspensions and to support media professionals punished for their opinions.
- Involve the Journalists Syndicate, the Media Professionals Syndicate, and civil society organizations in the drafting of regulatory codes and standards issued by the SCMR.
- Limit intervention by the SCMR in sports media content to clearly defined cases, such as incitement to violence or the dissemination of false information.
- Repeal Article 19 of the Media Regulation Law in order to prevent the SCMR from exercising authority over personal accounts, blogs, and individual online platforms.
[1] Official Gazette. Law No. 93 of 2016 Promulgating the Media Professionals Syndicate Law. Published 1 January 2017. https://manshurat.org/node/13761 [2] Masrawy. “'Don't Set a Trap for Anyone'... The Statement that Prompted Hossam Hassan’s Complaint Against Reda Abdel-Aal”. Published on June 17, 2026. https://www.masrawy.com/sports/sports-arab-international/details/2026/6/17/3004225/مترقدش-لحد-التصريح-المتسبب-في-شكوى-حسام-حسن-ضد-رضا-عبدالعال [3] Veto. “Hossam and Ibrahim Hassan Issue a Statement Regarding Their Complaint Against Reda Abdel-Aal to the SCMR”. Published on June 17, 2026. https://www.vetogate.com/5676622 [4] El Watan, Karim Osman. “Summoning the Legal Representative of 'TEN' Channel Regarding Hossam Hassan’s Complaint Against Reda Abdel-Aal”. Published on June 20, 2026. https://www.elwatannews.com/news/details/8305718 [5] The Official Gazette, Law No. 180 of 2018 on the Institutional Regulation of the Press, Media, and the SCMR, published on August 27, 2018: https://manshurat.org/node/31481 [6] Based on: 1. Articles 19, 94, and 95 of Law No. 180 of 2018 on the Regulation of the Press, Media, and the SCMR.The Sports Media Code of Conduct.Decision No. 16 Issuing the Sanctions Regulation.
It is clearly evident that the penalty becomes compounded. Restrictions are no longer confined to television and radio appearances but increasingly extend to personal digital platforms, including YouTube, X, and Instagram. Individuals may be ordered to remove audiovisual content or face referral to the Public Prosecution. Regulatory decisions are often framed as responses to professional misconduct, citing violations such as “breaching the code of ethics”, “violating the code of conduct”, or “failing to regularize legal status”. [7] SCMR. “Gamal Shawky Appointed Head of the Complaints Committee”. Published on December 23, 2017. https://scm.gov.eg/لجنة-الشكاوى-بالأعلى-للإعلام-تناقش-في/ [8] Akhbar El Yom Portal. “'SCMR' Restructures the Complaints Committee”. Published on December 26, 2024. https://akhbarelyom.com/news/newdetails/4518965/1/-الأعلى-للإعلام-يعيد-تشكيل-لجنة-الشكاوى [9] SCMR. “SCMR Announces the Formation of the Sports Media Performance Compliance Committee”. Published on December 4, 2024. https://scm.gov.eg/الأعلى-للإعلام-يعلن-تشكيل-لجنة-ضبط-أدا/ [10] SCMR. “Media Standards, Specialized Coverage Codes, and Penalties Regulation”. https://scm.gov.eg/المعايير-الإعلامية-أكواد-التغطية-الم/ [11] YouTube. Malab ON – Special Interview with Mahmoud Abou El Dahab and Ahmed Eid Abdel Malek Hosted by Seif Zaher. Broadcast on 3 May 2026. [12] Ofcom. The Ofcom Broadcasting Code. Published 31 December 2020; last updated 12 June 2023. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-standards/broadcast-code [13] Ofcom. The Ofcom Broadcasting Code. Published 31 December 2020; last updated 12 June 2023. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-standards/broadcast-code [14] European Commission. “Audiovisual Commercial Communications”. Shaping Europe’s Digital Future. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/commercial-communications [15] Donia Al-Watan. “Medhat Shalaby Suspended from Commentating Until the End of the Season Due to 'Inappropriate' Commentary”. Published on April 26, 2019. https://www.alwatanvoice.com/arabic/news/2019/04/26/1238626.html [16]Donia Al-Watan. “Medhat Shalaby Suspended from Commentating Until the End of the Season Due to 'Inappropriate' Commentary”. Published on April 26, 2019. https://www.alwatanvoice.com/arabic/news/2019/04/26/1238626.html [17]Youm7. “'Media Syndicate' Announces the Suspension of Hany Hathout from Media Activities for Two Weeks”. Published on February 24, 2022. https://www.youm7.com/story/2022/2/24/الإعلاميين-تعلن-إيقاف-هانى-حتحوت-عن-ممارسة-النشاط-الإعلامى-أسبوعين/5668071 [18] ا Hany Hathout from Appearing for 21 Days for Violating Codes and Standards”. Published on April 23, 2026. https://scm.gov.eg/الأعلى-للإعلام-إلزام-قناة-مودرن-إم-تي/ [19] Youm7. “Media Syndicate Announces Banning Hany Hathout's Appearance and Referring Him for Investigation”. Published on February 19, 2022. https://www.youm7.com/story/2022/2/19/نقابة-الإعلاميين-تعلن-منع-ظهور-هانى-حتحوت-وإحالته-للتحقيق/5661295 [20] SCMR. “Harvest of SCMR Decisions in 2018 to Regulate the Media Landscape”, Published on December 31, 2018. https://scm.gov.eg/حصاد-قرارات-الأعلي-للإعلام-في-٢٠١٨-لظب/ [21] Masrawy. “Within Two Weeks, Suspension of 5 Television Programs for Professional Violations”. Published on February 14, 2018. https://www.masrawy.com/news/news_egypt/details/2018/2/14/1263506/في-أسبوعين-إيقاف-5-برامج-تليفزيونية-لمخالفات-مهنية [22] Youm7. “SCMR Bans the Broadcast of 'Masaa Pyramids' Program for 15 Days and Issues a Warning”. Published on October 2, 2018. https://www.youm7.com/story/2018/10/2/الأعلى-للإعلام-يمنع-بث-برنامج-مساء-بيراميدز-15-يوما-ويوجه/3973688 [23] Al-Shorouk Portal, Ali Kamal. “SCMR Suspends ‘Malab Al Shams’, Fines the Channel EGP 100,000, and Warns of License Revocation”. Published 6 March 2025. https://www.shorouknews.com/news/view.aspx?cdate=06032025&id=0874c96e-fe74-4687-82e9-aa6e606ffff1 [24] Youm7. “SCMR Suspends ‘Malab Al Shams’ and Fines the Channel EGP 100,000”. Published 6 March 2025. https://www.youm7.com/story/2025/3/6/الأعلى-للإعلام-منع-بث-برنامج-ملعب-الشمس-وتغريم-القناة-100/6908066 [25] Al Masry Al Youm. “Shobier Banned from Appearing for Two Weeks: SCMR Suspends ‘Hares Al Ahly’”. Published 4 March 2025. https://www.almasryalyoum.com/news/details/3392113 [26] Al-Shorouk Portal, Ali Kamal. “SCMR Fines Al Shams TV EGP 50,000 over ‘Malab El Bulldozer, and Bans Osama Hassan from Media Appearances for Three Months”. Published 22 July 2025. https://www.shorouknews.com/news/view.aspx?cdate=22072025&id=fe4e8091-4b2f-4521-956f-a8fdb0ca7503 [27] SCMR. “SCMR statement Explaining the Reasons for Suspending LTC Channel”. Published 8 December 2018. https://scm.gov.eg/بيان-الأعلى-للإعلام-بحيثيات-منع-بث-قنا/ [28] SCMR. “SCMR Summons the Administrator of Islam Sadeq’s Facebook Page over Statements Concerning Egypt’s National Team Technical Staff”. Published 12 February 2026. https://scm.gov.eg/الأعلى-للإعلام-استدعاء-مسئول-صفحة-إسل/ [29] SCMR. “SCMR Bans Ahmed Hossam ‘Mido’ from Appearing in the Media”. Published 19 January 2026. https://scm.gov.eg/الأعلى-للإعلام-منع-ظهور-الكابتن-أحمد-ح/ [30] SCMR. “Recommendations of the Sports Media Performance Monitoring Committee”. Published 12 December 2024. https://scm.gov.eg/بيان-اجتمع-المجلس-الأعلى-لتنظيم-الإعل/ [31] Youm7. SCMR: “SCMR Extends Sports Programme Broadcasting Hours Starting in June in Conjunction with the FIFA World Cup”. Published 19 May 2026. https://www.youm7.com/story/2026/5/19/الأعلى-للإعلام-مد-بث-البرامج-الرياضية-من-أول-يونيو-بالتزامن/7421444 [32] Youm7. SCMR: “SCMR Extends Sports Programme Broadcasting Hours Starting in June in Conjunction with the FIFA World Cup”. Published 19 May 2026. https://www.youm7.com/story/2026/5/19/الأعلى-للإعلام-مد-بث-البرامج-الرياضية-من-أول-يونيو-بالتزامن/7421444
