Legal service says Koumas case in final review
Developments are expected soon in the criminal investigation regarding football television rights and the alleged conflicts of interest of former football association president Giorgos Koumas, after the legal service confirmed on Tuesday that its assessment of the case is now in its final stage.
A senior official said the file concerns a complex and serious matter and is being handled accordingly, adding that once a conclusion is reached the public will be informed through an official statement.
The comments follow public statements by independent criminal investigator Alexandra Lykourgou, who led the probe and said the evidence gathered justified, at minimum, an indictment.
She said she had identified both offences and individuals, stressing that any differing assessment now rests with the legal service.
The criminal investigation stems from findings by the sports ethics committee, which in October 2023 forwarded its conclusions to attorney-general George Savvides.
Lykourgou was appointed independent investigator the following month.
She submitted an interim report in December 2024 and delivered her final report and investigative material, comprising 20 files, in May 2025.
The investigation was formally completed in July 2025.
The case traces back to concerns first raised in 2014 over potential conflicts of interest linked to television rights.
At the centre of the probe were four companies connected to Koumas abroad, testimonies relating to the distribution of television revenue to clubs, contractual conditions involving match commentators, and links between production companies and federation officials.
Two earlier investigations, including a police probe completed in 2020, did not result in prosecutions.
Koumas resigned as CFA president in June 2025, saying his decision was taken to “protect football”.
He has denied wrongdoing and retains positions within international football bodies.
His lawyer, Christos Triantafyllidis, criticised Lykourgou’s public comments, arguing that only the legal service has the authority to assess evidence and decide on prosecutions.
He said his client would respond through proper legal channels if charges are brought.