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 [2]:
“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.