Abstract
This chapter considers the sporting sanctions that can be imposed on a player or a club as a result of a unilateral breach without just cause. For the sporting sanctions for players we note that this sanction is a restriction of 4 months on his eligibility to play in official matches. In the case of aggravating circumstances , the restriction for the player will last 6 months. In addition to an obligation to pay compensation, sporting sanctions may also be imposed on a club found to be in breach of contract or found to be inducing a breach during the Protected Period. It follows that FIFA will then ban the club from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for 2 entire and consecutive registration periods.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
DRC 2 November 2007, no. 1171309.
- 2.
DRC 2 November 2007, no. 1171309. See also CAS 2009/A/1880 FC Sion v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) & Al-Ahly Sporting Club and CAS 2009/A/1881 E. v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) & Al-Ahly Sporting Club, award of 10 June 2010. In this case the CAS Panel remarked that if it was the intention of the FIFA transfer regulations that it was to give the competent body the discretion to impose a sporting sanction, it would have employed the word “may” and not “shall”. However, the CAS Panel ruled that rules and regulations have to be interpreted in accordance with the real meaning. See also CAS 2007/A/1358 & 1359 FC Pyunik Yerevan v. L., AFC Rapid Bucaresti & FIFA, award of 26 May 2008 and CAS 2014/A/3765 Club X. v. D. & Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), award of 5 June 2015.
- 3.
See CAS 2009/A/1909 RCD Mallorca SAD v. FIFA UMM Salal SC, award of 25 January 2010.
- 4.
From the CAS case 2008/A/1448 M. & Club X. v. Club Y. & FIFA, award of 25 June 2008, it follows that when declared ineligible for playing in official matches as a result of a restriction to play for 4 months, the player was also prevented from taking part in a game with his national or representative team.
- 5.
DRC 28 September 2006, no. 96157. See also DRC 17 August 2006, no. 861307.
- 6.
DRC 4 October 2013, no. 10131238.
- 7.
DRC 10 June 2004, no. 6400276.
- 8.
DRC 4 February 2005, no. 25820.
- 9.
DRC 13 May 2005, no. 55484.
- 10.
DRC 21 February 2006, no. 26267.
- 11.
DRC 23 March 2006, no. 36460.
- 12.
DRC 10 August 2007, no. 871283. See also DRC 30 May 2006, no. 56653.
- 13.
DRC 27 February 2013, no. 0213412.
- 14.
DRC 27 November 2014, no. 1114239.
- 15.
In accordance with Article 17 para 3, these sporting sanctions shall take effect immediately once the player has been notified of the relevant decision. The sporting sanctions shall remain suspended in the period between the last official match of the season and the first official match of the next season, in both cases including national cups and international championships for clubs. This suspension of the sporting sanctions shall, however, not be applicable if the player is an established member of the representative team of the association he is eligible to represent, and the association concerned is participating in the final competition of an international tournament in the period between the last match and the first match of the next season.
- 16.
The Mexès case consists of several cases before the DRC as well as the CAS. For example, DRC 31 August 2004 (unpublished), in which case the DRC decided that Mexès unilaterally breached his contract with Auxerre without just cause. However, Mexès appealed to the CAS against the DRC decision of 31 August 2004. See the award of the CAS of 11 March 2005; CAS 2004 A/708/709/713, in which case the CAS confirmed the decision of the DRC of 31 August 2004. In its decision of 13 May 2005, no. 55503, the DRC ordered Mexès to pay compensation to Auxerre in the amount of EUR 8,000,000. Mexès also appealed against this decision to the CAS. This is the award of the CAS of 5 December 2005; CAS 2005/A/902/903. The CAS found the appeal partially admissible and ordered Mexès to pay Auxerre compensation in the amount of EUR 7,000,000. In its decision of 23 June 2005, no. 65503, the DRC decided that a ban should be imposed on AS Roma for 2 registration periods for the inducement for breach of contract. AS Roma, however, appealed to the CAS against the decision of the DRC of 23 June 2005, no. 65503. See the award of the CAS of 5 December 2005; CAS 2005/A/916. The CAS found the appeal partially admissible and ordered a ban on AS Roma for one entire registration period.
- 17.
DRC 2 November 2007, no. 117923.
- 18.
See CAS 2008/A/1448 M. & Club X. v. Club Y. & FIFA, award of 25 June 2008.
- 19.
DRC 25 September 2014, no. 0914107.
- 20.
DRC 27 November 2014, no. 1114239.
- 21.
DRC 27 May 2014, no. 0512679.
- 22.
PSC 30 January 2012, no. 01120974.
- 23.
DRC 27 February 2013, no. 0213412.
- 24.
DRC 9 November 2004, no. 11417.
- 25.
CAS 2005/A/899 FC Aris Thessaloniki v. FIFA & New Panionios N.F.C., award of 15 July 2005.
- 26.
DRC 23 March 2006, no. 36460.
- 27.
It is quite understandable that Mr. Janwillem Soek refers to the fact that it is not logical to impose a sanction on the player’s new club if it cannot prove that it did not have a hand in the player’s transfer; See Soek 2007.
- 28.
See also DRC 15 March 2013, no. 03131032.
- 29.
DRC 21 November 2006, no. 611727.
- 30.
See also DRC 28 September 2007, no. 9719, in which case it was decided that it is always recommended for a new club to check with the association of the former club what the contractual situation of the player actually is before signing him.
- 31.
CAS 2013/A/3091 FC Nantes v. FIFA & Al Nasr Sports Club, CAS 2013/A/3092 Ismaël Bangoura v. Al Nasr Sports Club & FIFA, CAS 2013/A/3093 Al Nasr Sports Club v. Ismaël Bangoura & FC Nantes, award of 2 July 2013.
- 32.
See also CAS 2007/A/1358 FC Pyunik Yerevan v. L., AFC Rapid Bucaresti & FIFA, award of 26 May 2008. In this case, the CAS noted that the inducement referred to in Article 17 para 4 RSTP is “an influence that causes and encourages a conduct”. The CAS is only entitled to decide upon the imposition of any sporting sanctions if FIFA itself is party to the relevant procedure. See also CAS 2011/A/2656-2657 and TAS 2013/A/3167.
- 33.
DRC 30 July 2014, no. 0714643.
- 34.
It comes down to the question whether or not the accused club played an active role in the player’s decisions that lead to a termination of contract without just cause. See CAS 2008/A/1448 M. & Club X. v. Club Y. & FIFA, award of 25 June 2008.
- 35.
DRC 4 October 2013, no. 10131238.
- 36.
The risk exists that the DRC does not establish that the clause is a buy-out clause; see DRC 4 October 2013, no. 10131238.
- 37.
FIFA Commentary, explanation under Article 17 RSTP under 1 sub 3, p. 47.
- 38.
RSTP, edition 2016, Article 18 para 4.
- 39.
DRC 27 November 2014, no. 1114239.
Reference
Soek J (2007) Termination of international employment agreements and the Just Cause concept in the case law of the FIFA dispute resolution Chamber. Int Sports Law J 3(4):28–46
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
de Weger, F. (2016). Sporting Sanctions. In: The Jurisprudence of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber. ASSER International Sports Law Series. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-126-5_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-126-5_10
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-125-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-126-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)
