It's just a bit childish.
Plus, whoever you complain to is also going to support a football team, so you're essentially insulting them by proxy and saying they couldn't be impartial in a matter tangentially involving their club.
I doubt Lord Pannick is a seacon ticket holder. The 3 CAS judges would all have supported someone.
Sometimes I think some posters would refuse surgery if they found out their doctor was a United fan (or Liverpool, or Arsenal, or Chelsea or any of the hateful 8 or Barcelona, or Bayern etc).
Not sure that's a fair analogy.
How about this: would you refuse surgery from a member of an organ harvesting cult, even if he is the most qualified? And if you didn't, would you always have a sneaking suspicion that one of your kidneys may be missing? Why would the hospital put you in that position when there are plenty of other surgeons?
There must be plenty of experienced KCs who don't have a season ticket at a rival who can gain from the outcome. Why put yourself in the position, if you are the PL, where that can even be mentioned in the public sphere?
Not saying he will be biased, but why even have the smallest appearance of the meerest glimmer of a conflict of interest when you don't have to?
What if, say, one of our defences is that the PL has been put under pressure from our competitors to act and we refer to Arsenal as one of the CAS 9, or use the letter on Arsenal's letterheading? Would that not be uncomfortable for him? Would that not cast doubt, however unfounded, on his actions?
Not really that bothered, I think we will be OK whoever is in charge, I just don't think it's a smart move by the PL, or by him to accept for that matter.