The FA has failed to get an independent decision overturned which found allegations Imran Louza spat at Swansea City’s Ryan Manning were unproven.

This decision by the Appeal Board means that Louza can now face no further action in relation to the allegation, made after the game with the Swans at Vicarage Road on October 5.

The original Regulatory Commission, which met on October 21 and found the allegation not proved, comprised of the experienced barrister Simon Parry, the former England captain Faye White, and former professional footballer Marvin Robinson.

READ MORE: Watford draw friendly in Spain

In the conclusion to their findings, the Commission said: “There is simply insufficient convincing evidence that could lead us to the conclusion that we prefer one party’s evidence to that of another. The burden of proving the case rests on The FA. In our judgment, the evidence is quite simply not sufficiently compelling to drive us to the conclusion that The FA has discharged its burden of proving the case. Accordingly, we find the Charge not proven.”

However, the FA then appealed the decision of the Commission on the basis that it had “materially misdirected itself in respect of and misapplied the standard of proof that was applicable to the case”.

The Appeal Board, which was chaired by David Casement KC and also included Francis Duku and Laura McCallum, met on November 18 to hear the appeal, and their findings were published at the end of last week.

They revealed in their findings that the original papers presented to the Regulatory Commission consisted of 83 pages which included 12 pages of evidence as well as some video clips.

In contrast, the Appeal Board were given a bundle of papers running to 1,583 pages, and both Watford and the FA were represented by King’s Counsel (Nick De Marco KC represented Watford).

In their written reasons for rejecting the FA appeal, the Appeals Board noted that Mr De Marco KC pointed out that the original Commission “found the case to be no more than one person’s word against another. The video evidence did not show any spitting. There was no identification by the referee of any evidence of spitting whether by seeing it happen or seeing saliva on the complainant when he approached the referee”.

This was echoed in the closing paragraphs of the Appeal Board’s findings, which stated they had considered the papers as well as the video footage and had arrived at the same conclusion as the original Commission.

In their penultimate paragraph, the Appeals Board wrote: “This case was solely one person’s word against another. The video evidence does not show the act complained of and the complaint to the referee is not probative in these circumstances.”

The findings of the Appeals Board also noted that the costs of the Appeals Board would be paid by the FA.

Although he cannot face any further charges in relation to this allegation, Louza is currently sidelined after breaking his ankle and damaging ligaments during the defeat at Millwall in October.