THE AFL Tribunal has determined it is "implausible" that umpire Nick Foot would have 'invented' the comment that has seen Port Adelaide star Zak Butters fined for umpire abuse.

On Tuesday, Butters was convicted of using abusive and insulting language towards an umpire and fined $1500, with the Tribunal pointing to the midfielder's long history of sanctions as "relevant" to its findings.

"Mr Butters did not use expletives and while the offending comment was insulting and should not have been made, it can be described as a sledge made among other dissenting comments by players to Mr Foot which might have separately warranted a 50-metre penalty," the Tribunal said in a statement of its reasoning on Wednesday.

"However, it is also relevant that this is far from the first time that Mr Butters has committed a reportable offence during his career. He has committed well over a dozen reportable offences over the last eight seasons."

With Tuesday's verdict, Butters has now been sanctioned 22 times across his career with a fines total of $51,625.

The Tribunal pointed to the fact that Foot said Butters made two comments towards him, while Butters claimed he only made one, as a determining factor in its decision on Tuesday night.

"We reject Mr Butters evidence that he only made one comment ... (it) is contrary to the evidence of Mr Foot," the Tribunal said. "Consistent with Mr Foot's evidence, Mr (Ollie) Wines said that he heard Mr Butters comment on the free kick more than once.

"We also accept the AFL's submission that it would be peculiar for Mr Butters to make his only comment about the umpiring decision just before the St Kilda player took his free kick. This is because Mr Butters appears in the vision to be unhappy with the umpiring decision as soon as it was made, he told the Tribunal he was very frustrated with the decision and he stood close to Mr Foot for some time including while Mr Wines was himself complaining about the decision.

"It is unlikely that Mr Butters remained silent about the umpiring decision until just before the free kick was taken.

"We find that Mr Butters made more than one comment to Mr Foot about his umpiring decision and that his final comment, made after Mr Foot blew his whistle to direct the St Kilda player to move on with his free kick, was the offending comment.

"Mr Foot's unchallenged evidence was that Mr Butters made the offending comment at a lower volume than his earlier comments."

The Tribunal found it "implausible" that umpire Foot would have invented the offending comment, "how much are they paying you?".

"It is implausible that Mr Foot would invent the offending comment and it was not put to him that he had done so. It was put to him that there were several distractions and that he had misheard what Mr Butters said. We also consider that to be implausible," the Tribunal said.

"It is implausible that Mr Foot misheard the words 'Surely that's not a free kick' as 'How much are they paying you?'. None of the words that Mr Butters said he spoke are any of the words that Mr Foot believes he heard. Mr Foot was certain as to what he heard, the two men were standing close to one another and Mr Foot responded without hesitation in giving a 50-metre penalty and then shortly thereafter telling Mr Butters that he was being reported."

Port Adelaide will now determine if it will appeal the finding.

Power chairman David Koch indicated earlier on Wednesday, before the Tribunal released its findings, that the club would appeal.

"Zak is a competitor but he's one of the nicest blokes you could ever meet," Koch said on 5AA on Wednesday.

"He's incredibly angry with the outcome. He quite rightly believes he's been dubbed a liar in all this.

"The bloke has enormous pride and integrity of his values."

Earlier on Wednesday, AFLPA chief executive James Gallagher said the organisation was "deeply disappointed" by the Tribunal outcome.

"A misunderstanding about what was said on field should have been resolved in the aftermath of the match, not referred to the tribunal," Gallagher said in a statement.

"The Tribunal determining not to accept all of the evidence consistent with Zak's version of events, including testimony of Zak's teammate Ollie Wines, nor have sufficient doubt when upholding a charge is deeply concerning.

"We've offered our full support to Zak and Port Adelaide in exploring their options to appeal."

The AFL Umpires Association has thrown their support behind Foot, claiming the fact he did not engage with Butters after the match - as umpires are directed not to do - led to "multiple pointed criticisms of his character".

"Foot was subject to multiple pointed criticisms of his character when he did not engage with Zak Butters at the conclusion of the game," AFL Umpires Association CEO, Rob Kerr, said is a statement.

"Those criticisms were made without an understanding that an umpire is prohibited by the Laws of the Game from speaking to a player they have reported. Nick Foot's actions weren't due to any heightened sensitivity, or a lack of courtesy; they were a commitment to due process as allowing reported players to approach an official invites undue influence and pressure.

"Maintaining this 'no-talk' boundary is a protective measure — not a personal slight — ensuring the process remains impartial."

More to come ...