CAS 2019/A/6621 resums that when contracting with a foreign Club occurs without prior questioning of the validity or validity of the Player’s employment contract with a Club belonging to other Asdociation , the request of the ITC would activate, according to the reasoning of the CAS last exposed, the competence of FIFA under art . 22, a) of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
Award 2019 / A / 6621, of October 7
In the case resolved by this recent CAS Award, issued on October 7, it was to appreciate an analogous circumstance and a difference with respect to the precedent just mentioned.
The peculiarity in this matter derived from the fact that, unlike the one resolved in the aforementioned award, since the ITC had been requested by AS MONACO to be able to register the Player, OSASUNA argued that in this case art. 22, b) of the FIFA Statute and Transfer Regulations, but 22, a) of the same Regulations, according to which: “Without prejudice to the right of any player or club to raise a case before an ordinary court of labor disputes, the FIFA has the competence to deal with: a) disputes between clubs and players in relation to the maintenance of contractual stability (art. 13-18) if an ITC request has been issued and if there is a claim from an interested party in relation to said ITC, in particular with regard to its issuance, concerning sports sanctions or compensation for breach of contract ”.
Well, the CAS makes the following interpretation regarding the applicability of such provision to the case raised :
“121… In the first place, the Panel notes that the rule contained in letter a) of art. 22 of the FIFA RETJ is established «without prejudice to the right of any player or club to seek justice before a civil court for labor disputes», as in the case in attendance. On the other hand, the Panel is of the opinion that this provision is precisely intended to cover those cases that gain an international dimension due to the fact that the contractual dispute in question arises from the fact that the player intends to “move internationally”. In other words, depending on the circumstances of the case, if a footballer unilaterally terminates an employment contract with his club as a result of the induction of a third club belonging to a different national association, or because he plans to join that third club, and the latter requests the issuance of the player’s ITC, these circumstances could activate the applicability of art. 22 letter a) of the FIFA RETJ and grant jurisdiction to the FIFA CRD, which would be competent to decide the merits of the case (for example, whether or not there is a breach of the contract), and not only the question of the request of the ITC in herself.
- However, in this case such factual premises do not concur. Contrary to what the Appellant maintains, the present dispute does not arise as a result of the request by the Second Appellee of the player’s ITC. On the contrary, the dispute between the Player and the Club began a couple of months earlier, on May 25, 2017, when the Player notified the Club that he did not accept the extension of the employment contract and that his employment relationship would end on May 30. June 2017. Therefore, the dispute between the Club and the Player began exactly 2 months before the ITC request, which was made on July 25, 2017. In fact, when the dispute between the Club and the Player was started (that is, on May 25, 2017), the Player’s agent had not yet contacted the Second Appellee to offer the Player’s services, which he did on May 30, 2017. This is further credited by the fact that that the Appellant submitted his request for conciliation exclusively against the First Appellee on July 21, 2017.
- Consequently, in the present case it cannot be argued that the dispute results from or is sufficiently related to ITC’s request, or that it is due to “planned international transfer”. On the contrary, by supporting the opinion that the Appellant seeks to support, the Panel considers that the present dispute derives from a controversy that arises exclusively between the Appellant and the First Appellee due to the latter’s decision not to extend the Employment Contract, «And only at a later time did the player try to join a new club affiliated with a different association, so the planned international transfer is not the reason for the contractual litigation.»
As a consequence of all of the foregoing, CAS confirmed FIFA’s decision declaring CA OSASUNA’s claim inadmissible.
On September 18, 2020, the 70th Congress of the Fèderation Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”)  was held electronically, in which, among other measures, a series of amendments to the FIFA Statutes were approved and the Regulations for the Application of the Statutes ], whose entry into force took place with immediate effect after its approval on September 18, 2020 , and which have been incorporated into the different regulatory bodies through FIFA Circular No. 1732 dated September 23, 2020.
Among these modifications, this article addresses the amendments to articles 5 to 9 of the Regulations for the Application of the FIFA Statutes (the “FIFA RAE”) in relation to “Eligibility to play for national teams” and which were previously included under the heading «criteria for the call to participate with the national teams».
In summary, with the aforementioned amendments, FIFA has tried to fill the existing legal gaps and gaps detected based on practical experience and the casuistry of recent years in this regard.
FIFA notes that the amendments essentially seek to:
Define ambiguous and confusing concepts (on which the federations constantly request clarification); Incorporate and codify the jurisprudence established by the sole judge of the Players’ Status Commission (“CEJ”) (in order to provide legal certainty); Introduce three (3) additional exceptions to the general prohibition that prevents changing federations  (based on proposals from member federations and jurisprudence); Regulate the situation of stateless footballers.
The Spanish Football Federation (RFEF) and LaLiga (LNFP) have set out rules related to the potential consequences of the coronavirus pandemic in the upcoming 2020-21 season, which kicks off next weekend, 12-13 September.
Both institutions have sent issued the same press release announcing that «these measures are intended to introduce a safeguard to modify the competition rules in the event that the circumstances arising from the pandemic so require».
Specifically, rules are set «to define the alternative stadiums of each team for cases in which the matches could not be played in their own stadiums.» In this case, the clubs will have until before the second match day of the 2020-21 season begins (September 18) to communicate their choice of alternative venues, which must be outside of their own autonomous communities.
FIFA has published a comprehensive new handbook in which the latest FIFA regulations, statutory documents and relevant circulars can be accessed in one place electronically for the first time and has been created to provide an all-in-one electronic resource for FIFA documentation related to legal, governance and regulatory matters in football.
As well as the FIFA Statutes, the FIFA Legal Handbook features numerous other key FIFA regulatory and statutory codes. These include the FIFA Governance Regulations, Disciplinary Code, Code of Ethics and Anti-Doping Regulations, as well as the latest FIFA regulations governing the status and transfer of players, working with intermediaries, club licensing, stadium safety and security, and the Forward Programme, amongst others.
In addition, the FIFA Legal Handbook also includes relevant circulars and standard FIFA legal documents.
Buena noticia que se ha demorado en exceso pero que es bien recibida. El Consejo Internacional de Arbitraje del Deporte, órgano de gobierno del Tribunal Arbitral del Deporte (TAS, CAS en francés), ha decidido adoptar al español como uno de los idiomas oficiales de los procedimientos arbitrales del TAS.
Según ha informado este martes el citado órgano, el español es ahora uno de los tres idiomas de trabajo del TAS, junto al francés y al inglés.
La decisión de adoptar el español como idioma oficial reconoce la importancia creciente de este idioma en el mundo del arbitraje deportivo.
El TAS gestiona más de 600 procedimientos arbitrales cada año, de los cuales aproximadamente el 10% concierne a partes litigantes de habla hispana.
Hasta ahora, las partes podían solicitar que los procedimientos arbitrales se tramitasen en español pero dicha solicitud estaba sujeta al acuerdo de todas las partes y los árbitros actuantes.
Desde la fundación del TAS, más de 400 procedimientos arbitrales se han gestionado en español.
La adopción formal del español como tercer idioma oficial de trabajo del TAS se plasmará en la nueva versión del Código de Arbitraje Deportivo que entró en vigor a procedimientos desde 1 de julio de 2020.
FIFA Professional Football Journal available online now in its edition No.1.