2. Procedural Aspects

Dispute Resolution Chamber. http://​www.​fifa.​com/​governance/​disciplinary/​dispute-resolution-system.​html. Accessed 26 July 2016.

Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, 2015 edition, Article 10.

DRC 22 November 2002, no. 300702.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 20.

Dispute Resolution Chamber. http://​www.​fifa.​com/​about-fifa/​official-documents/​governance/​dispute-resolution-chamber.​html. Accessed 26 July 2016. For the sake of completeness, it is worth mentioning that the decisions of the PSC are also published. http://​www.​fifa.​com/​about-fifa/​official-documents/​governance/​player-status-committee.​html. Accessed 26 July 2016. The first decision of the PSC as published on the FIFA website is dated 21 November 2011.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 8.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 11 para 1.

DRC 28 September 2007, no. 9719.

DRC 17 August 2006, no. 86137.

RSTP, 2016 edition, Article 25 para 7.

Procedural Rules, 2005 edition, Article 18 para 3.

As was pronounced in FIFA Circular no. 959 dated 16 March 2005.

As stipulated in Article 17 para 4 of the Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, an advance of costs is calculated according to the value of the dispute. If the amount in dispute is up to CHF 50,000, the advance of costs is CHF 1000, if the amount in dispute is up to CHF 100,000, the advance of costs is CHF 2000, if the amount in dispute is up to CHF 150,000, the advance of costs is CHF 3000 and if the amount in dispute is up to CHF 200,000, the advance of costs is CHF 4000. From CHF 200,001, the advance costs is CHF 5000.

Procedural Rules, 2012 edition, Article 21.

According to FIFA Circular 1468, the new provisions correspond to the existing regulatory framework within the FIFA Disciplinary Code.

See for example, DRC 17 August 2006, no. 862.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 21 para 2.

The list of DRC members is placed on the website of FIFA. http://​www.​fifa.​com/​about-fifa/​committees/​committee=​1889876/​index.​html. Accessed 26 July 2016.

FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 24, p. 72. Procedural Rules, Article 4.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 5 para 7.

RSTP, 2016 edition, Article 24 para 2.

FIFA Statutes, 2016 edition, Article 59 para 2.

FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 22, p. 64.

DRC 16 October 2014, no. 10143276.

FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 22, p. 64.

DRC 21 November 2006, no. 1161241. In a decision by the DRC of 21 February 2006 with regard to a dispute between a player and a club, the Chamber concluded that it could not protect the player’s stance. By referring the question with regard to his registration to a civil court the player had infringed Article 61 para 2 of the FIFA Statutes. With regard to the contractual dispute, the player preferred to revert to the decision-making bodies of the football instances. The DRC however decided that such forum shopping cannot be accepted, in particular in view of the disrespect of the FIFA Statutes. As a consequence, the DRC decided as a result thereof not to enter into the consideration of the player’s claim. One can see that the DRC is very rigorous regarding the way to civil courts. See also DRC 21 February 2006, no. 26267, and DRC 2 November 2007, no. 117309.

Following the DRC jurisprudence it is not relevant whether the case is initiated based on sub a or sub b of Article 22 RSTP, the so-called “sub a or b-procedure”, as will be introduced in this chapter later on. See DRC 2 November 2007, no. 1171310.

DRC 15 February 2008, no. 28747. During the year 2012, 1787 claims were lodged before the various decision-making bodies, i.e. DRC, DRC Judge, PSC and its Single Judge.

DRC 3 July 2008, no. 78662. See also DRC 16 April 2009, no. 49024, in which case the DRC decided that it is not possible to lodge a claim before the DRC as well as a national committee. In this case, the Chamber considered that the player, by lodging a second claim before the national deciding body, recognized, by action implying his intention, the competence of the national committee.

DRC 1 March 2012, no. 3122113. See also DRC 31 July 2013, no. 07131395.

FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 22, p. 65.

RSTP, 2016 edition, Article 25 para 1.

FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 22, p. 65.

This Convention will apply to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made in the territory of a state other than the state where the recognition and enforcement of such awards are sought. As of June 2015, 156 countries can be entitled as state party. See also The New York Arbitration Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958. http://​www.​newyorkconventio​n.​org/​. Accessed 26 July 2016.

FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 22, remark 99, p. 65.

DRC 17 August 2006, no. 861307.

RSTP, 2016 edition, Article 22 under f.

The list of members of the PSC is placed on the FIFA website.

http://​www.​fifa.​com/​about-fifa/​committees/​committee=​1882032/​index.​html. Accessed 26 July 2016.

This follows from the RSTP, 2016 edition, Article 22 under c.

RSTP, 2016 edition, Article 23 para 1 in conjunction with Article 22 under c and f. In DRC decision a decision by the DRC of 11 March 2005 regarding an international transfer, the DRC decided that it was not competent to handle this matter. In this case there was a financial dispute between the parties resulting from the transfer of a Brazilian player. The DRC had decided earlier that the case at hand should be considered as a dispute over the interpretation and execution of a transfer contract that had been signed between the buying and selling clubs. Therefore, the DRC was of the opinion that these disputes did not fall within their remit and that the PSC was the competent body. DRC 11 March 2005, no. 35671. The PSC is not competent with regard to disputes related to the solidarity mechanism either, which also follows from DRC 28 August 2013, no. 08131586.

Regulations governing the Application of the Statutes, 2016 edition, Article 8 para 3.

RSTP, 2016 edition, Article 19 paras 4–5 and Annex 2 and 3. Pursuant to Article 19 para 1 RSTP, international transfers of players are only permitted if the player is over the age of 18. However, according to para 2, 3 exceptions to this rule apply: (a) The player’s parents move to the country in which the new club is located for reasons not linked to football. (b) The transfer takes place within the territory of the European Union (EU) or European Economic Area (EEA) and the player is aged between 16 and 18. In this case, the new club must fulfil minimum obligations. (c) The player lives no further than 50 km from a national border and the club with which the player wishes to be registered in the neighbouring association is also within 50 km of that border. The maximum distance between the player’s domicile and the club’s headquarters shall be 100 km. In such cases, the player must continue to live at home and the two associations concerned must give their explicit consent. The conditions of this provision shall also apply to any player who has never previously been registered with a club and is not a national of the country in which he wishes to be registered for the first time. According to para 4, every international transfer according to para 2 and every first registration according to para 3 is subject to the approval of the subcommittee appointed by the PSC for that purpose. The application for approval shall be submitted by the association that wishes to register the player. The former association shall be given the opportunity to submit its position and the sub-committee’s approval shall be obtained prior to any request from an association for an ITC and/or a first registration. Any violations of this provision will be sanctioned by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee in accordance with the FIFA Disciplinary Code. In addition to the association that failed to apply to the sub-committee, sanctions may also be imposed on the former association for issuing an ITC without the approval of the sub-committee, as well as on the clubs that reached an agreement for the transfer of a minor. Pursuant to para 5, the procedures for applying to the sub-committee for a first registration and an international transfer of a minor are contained in Annex 2 of the RSTP. Aside from the aforementioned three conditions, there are two other conditions. In the first place, the sub-committee appointed by the PSC has confirmed that a foreign minor who has been living for at least five years in the country where he wishes to be registered at a club for the first time should be considered a national of that country from a sporting point of view. In other words, an application for the registration of a foreign minor under these circumstances is regularly being granted Via FIFA Circular no. 1542, FIFA informed its members regarding changes in the RSTP concerning the provisions on the protection of minors. From the Circular it follows that the wording of Article 19 paras 3 and 4 of the RSTP has been amended in order for it to adequately reflect the well-established jurisprudence of the Sub-Committee of the PSC in relation to the so-called "five-year rule". According to FIFA and following that which is set out in this Circular, the aforementioned rule created by jurisprudence allows for the first registration of a minor player for a club in a territory of a country of which he is not a national, provided that he has lived continuously for at least five years in that territory immediately prior to the intended first registration. Said rule is already included as a separate application in TMS. As such, the current amendment of the provision does not constitute any change to the existing practice and constant jurisprudence. The current Article 19 para 3 of edition 2016 now reads as follows: "The conditions of this article shall also apply to any player who has never previously been registered with a club, is not a national of the country in which he wishes to be registered for the first time and has not lived continuously for at least the last five years in said country." In the current Article 19 para 4 of edition 2016 it is added: "…. as well as every first registration of a foreign minor player who has lived continuously for at least the last five years in the country in which he wishes to be registered ....". Further to this, 2 other conditions can be derived from case CAS 2008/A/1485 FC Midtjylland A/S v. FIFA, award of 6 March 2009. The international transfer of minors is allowed in cases where the players concerned could establish without doubt that the reason for relocation to another country was related to their studies, and not to their activity as football players. Further to this, the international transfer is also allowed in cases in which the association of origin and the new club of the players concerned have signed an agreement with the scope of a development programme for young players under certain strict conditions (agreement on the academic and/or school education, authorisation granted for a limited period of time). In this Midtjylland case it was also decided that Article 19 RSTP applies equally to amateur and professional minor players. Article 19 is there to protect minor player without any specification as to the status of these players. For further relevant jurisprudence of the CAS in this regard, see also CAS 2012/A/2862 FC Girondins de Bordeaux v. FIFA (Vada II), award of 11 January 2013, from which award it follows that in case a player aged 16 (or 17) years is transferred from outside the EU to a country inside the EU and the player has a European passport, the player is entitled to claim a transfer on the basis of Article 19 para 2 RSTP despite the fact it contains no transfer within the EU. See also CAS 2005/A/955 Càdiz C.F., SAD v. FIFA and Asociación Parguaya de Fútbol, award of 30 December 2005, CAS 2007/A/1403 Real Racing Club de Santander SAD v. Club Estudiantes de la Plata, order of 12 December 2007, CAS 2005/A/956 Carlos Javier Acuña Caballero v. FIFA and Asociación Parguaya de Fútbol, award of 30 December 2005 and CAS 2013/A/3140 A. v. Club Atlético de Madrid SAD & Real Federación Española de Fútbol (RFEF) & FIFA, award of 10 October 2013. In the latter case it was decided that Article 19 RSTP sets key principles designed to protect the interests of minor players. Therefore, it must be applied in a strict, rigorous and consistent manner, which means that there can be no other exceptions to the principle of Article 19 RSTP than those carefully drafted in para 2 of said provision. According to the CAS, Article 19 para 2 lit. a RSTP aims to protect the young player who follows his family moving abroad for personal reasons, and not the parents who follow their child in view to integrate at a club situated abroad. The test is thus, according to the CAS, to assess the true intention and motivation of the player’s parents. The CAS decided that the player’s parents did not move to Spain for reasons linked to football. See also TAS 2011/A/2494 FC Girondins de Bordeaux c. FIFA (Vada I), award of 22 December 2011. In the latter award the CAS stressed that the rationale of Article 19 para 2 lit. a RSTP is to allow a minor player to follow his or her family and not to allow a family to follow its child. In CAS 2014/A/3793 FC Barcelona v. FIFA, award of 24 April 2015 (operative part of 30 December 2014). In the latter case, it was established by the CAS that FC Barcelona had breached the rules regarding the protection of minors and the registration of minors attending football academies, Article 19 and Article 19bis of the RSTP. See also CAS 2014/A/3611 Real Madrid FC v. FIFA, award of 27 February 2015.

RSTP, 2016 edition, Annex 3, Article 8.2 paras 6–7. See also CAS 2011/A/2354 Elmir Muhic v. FIFA, award of 24 August 2011. See also Wild 2011, p. 263, in which book reference is made to the cases CAS 2003/O/530 AJ Auxerre v. Valencia and M. Sissoko, award of 27 August 2004, and CAS 2004/A/791 La SASP Le Havre Athletic Club and l’Association Le Havre Athletic Club v. FIFA and Newcastle United and M. Charles N’Zogbia, award of 27 October 2005 (reference to this award was made in DRC 28 September 2007, no. 97938; see also DRC 9 November 2004, no. 114667–09, and DRC 26 November 2004, no. 114667–26).

RSTP, 2016 edition, Annex 1, Article 6 para 2 in conjunction with 3.

If the new club paid the entire amount of compensation to the former club without having deducted the 5 % solidarity contribution, the claim for recovering the amount paid in excess would have to be filed with the PSC, which can be based on Article 22 under f of RSTP, 2016 edition. See also FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 24, p. 73, footnote 108.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 6 para 1. See also the FIFA website. http://​resources.​fifa.​com/​mm/​document/​affederation/​administration/​02/​55/​56/​57/​rulesgoverningth​eproceduresofthe​pscandthedrc(april2015)_​neutral.​pdf. Accessed 26 July 2016. A distinction is made between “club-club-disputes”, “coach-disputes” and “players’ and match agent disputes”.

See for example DRC 22 July 2004, no. 74557.

This can be derived from the RSTP, 2016 edition, Article 24 para 1, and Annex 3, Article 8.2 paras 6–7, which stated, among other things, that the professional player, the former club and/or the new club are entitled and have been given the facility to file a claim with FIFA in accordance with Article 22 of the RSTP.

RSTP, 2016 edition, Article 22 under a.

RSTP, 2016 edition, Article 22 under b.

RSTP, 2016 edition, Article 22 under d.

RSTP, 2016 edition, Article 22 under e.

RSTP, 2016 edition, Article 22 under b.

DRC 11 March 2005, no. 35671. As said previously, if there is doubt with regard to the jurisdiction of the PSC or the DRC, the chairman of the PSC decides which body (the DRC or the PSC) will eventually have jurisdiction. See FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 23, p. 66.

RSTP, 2016 edition, Annex 3, Administrative Procedure Governing the Transfer of Players between Associations, Article 8.1 para 1, and Article 8.2 para 4 under a and b.

DRC 25 August 2006, no. 86613. See also 12 March 2009, no. 39274.

DRC 13 December 2013, no. 12131045. See also Blackshaw et al. 2005.

DRC 13 December 2013, no. 12132433.

DRC 17 January 2014, no. 114396. See also DRC 30 August 2013, no. 08133402. See also DRC 10 February 2015, no. 02151030 and DRC 28 March 2014, no. 03141211. In the latter case, the DRC referred to its jurisprudence according to which, when an agreement bearing the title “image rights agreement” also includes typical elements of an employment contract, this agreement is considered as part of the employment contract. The Chamber considered the player’s claim to be admissible. See also CAS 2014/A/3579 Anorthosis Famagusta FC v. Emanuel Perrone, award of 11 May 2015 and CAS 2015/A/3923 Fábio Rochemback v. Dalian Aerbin FC, award of 30 October 2015.

DRC 11 March 2011, no. 311896.

DRC 26 November 2004, no. 114667–26, and DRC 9 November 2004, no. 114667–09.

DRC 3 September 2015, no. 091511705.

DRC 7 June 2013, no. 06132378.

DRC 12 January 2006, no. 16830.

DRC 26 October 2006, no. 1061318. See also DRC 12 October 2006, no. 1061118.

DRC 23 February 2007, no. 27409.

DRC 15 February 2008, no. 28079.

DRC 21 September 2012, no. 912213.

See also PSC 23 September 2014, no. 09141041.

DRC 28 June 2013, no. 06132647.

DRC 1 June 2005, no. 65349, DRC 23 March 2006, no. 631290, DRC 27 April 2006, no. 46610, DRC 17 August 2006, no. 86174, and DRC 26 October 2006, no. 1061318.

In the concept of Article 22 under a of the RSTP, 2016 edition, the so-called “sub a procedure”, FIFA Commentary states that when a player signs for a club affiliated to another association as a result of an employment-related dispute, it is irrelevant whether the player has the nationality of the country where the former club was domiciled. The registration of the player following the termination of the contract determines whether the dispute is national or international. For example, if the player registers at a new club in the same association where his former club is domiciled, the dispute is national. If the player registers at a club in another association and there is an ITC request, the dispute is international. According to FIFA Commentary, such international disputes are referred to the DRC with regard to the substance of the matter. See FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 22, p. 66. For example, in a DRC decision of 9 November 2004, the player had concluded “a contrat stagiaire” with a French club, valid from 1 July 2003 until 30 June 2004. After the contract expired, the player signed an employment contract with an English club. On 13 August 2004, the English Football Association asked the French Football Federation to issue the ITC for the player. The French Football Federation refused to issue the ITC. On 19 August 2004, the English Football Association asked FIFA to order the French Football Federation to issue the ITC. On 2 September 2004, FIFA ordered the French Football Federation to issue the ITC. In the same letter, FIFA authorised the English Football Association to provisionally register the player. On 14 September 2004, the French club appealed to the CAS and asked for a suspension of the registration and on 6 October 2004 the CAS suspended the registration of the English Football Association until the final DRC decision. The DRC considered that it was competent to judge in this case, because of the international dimension. In line with the above, it is clear and it explicitly follows that the DRC may adjudicate on all cases and disputes where an ITC is involved. See also DRC 9 November 2004, no. 114667–09, and DRC 26 November 2004, no. 114667–26. The DRC further decided that, before it takes a final decision, it will give the parties the option to resolve their problems amicably. If the parties cannot reach an amicable settlement, then the Chamber will reconsider the case at a future meeting.

DRC 3 October 2008, no. 1081355.

DRC 7 February 2014, no. 02143217. See also DRC 25 April 2014, no. 04143063. In the latter case, the DRC also pointed out that when both parties have the same nationality, the dispute shall be considered as national or internal, with the consequence that the rules and regulations of the association concerned shall be applied to the matter, and the deciding bodies are to decide on the issue in accordance with the relevant provisions. If FIFA’s deciding body would deal with such an internal matter, the internal competence of FIFA members would be violated. These principles of delimitation between the competence of FIFA and the competence of the associations are primordial for the reciprocal recognition of the organizations and autonomy of FIFA and its member associations.

DRC 26 November 2004, no. 114667–26, and DRC 1 June 2005, no. 65349.

FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 22, p. 66.

RSTP, 2016 edition, Article 22 under b in conjunction with Article 24.

DRC 17 August 2006, no. 861174.

DRC 2 November 2007, no. 2117.

FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 22, remark 101, p. 66.

DRC 17 August 2006, no. 86999.

DRC 17 August 2012, no. 8122302.

DRC 6 March 2013, no. 031322423. See also DRC 27 February 2014, no. 02143259.

DRC 17 January 2014, no. 01143276.

See also DRC 28 March 2014, no. 03142693, and DRC 28 March 2014, no. 03141211.

DRC 6 March 2013, no. 03132697. See also DRC 26 October 2012, no. 10121653, DRC 25 October 2012, no. 10121186, DRC 7 June 2013, no. 06131674, and DRC 15 March 2013, no. 03132656.

DRC 27 February 2014, no. 02142682.

See DRC 17 January 2014, no. 0114044.

DRC 10 June 2004, no. 64357.

DRC 26 November 2004, no. 114628, DRC 11 March 2005, no. 35284, DRC 1 June 2005, no. 65412, DRC 1 June 2005, no. 65414, and DRC 17 August 2006, no. 86833.

DRC 31 October 2013, no. 10131629.

DRC 17 August 2012, no. 8122302. See also DRC 4 July 2003, no. 730291, DRC 10 June 2004, no. 6400276, DRC 1 June 2005, no. 65349, and DRC 28 March 2008, no. 381130.

DRC 6 March, no. 03132423.

DRC 13 October 2010, no. 10102536. See also DRC 6 March 2013, no. 03132697, DRC 26 October 2012, no. 10121653, and DRC 7 June 2013, no. 06131674.

DRC 25 April 2013, no. 04131433.

DRC 17 May 2013, no. 05131423. See also DRC 13 December 2013, no. 12131045.

DRC 27 May 2014, no. 05142694.

RSTP, 2016 edition, Article 22 under d in conjunction with Article 24.

There is an exception, as will be discussed in Chap. 12 of Part II, to the rule that FIFA’s solidarity mechanism does not apply to national transfers: if the association concerned has included a clear clause in its own regulations, thereby acknowledging the obligation to pay an amount of solidarity contribution as a consequence of domestic transfers. See FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 1, p. 128.

RSTP, 2016 edition, Annex 4, Article 5 para 4. Circular 959 dated 16 March 2005.

It is important to emphasize that the Single Judge of the PSC is competent to decide on the calculation of the amount of solidarity contribution. If the new club paid the entire amount of compensation to the former club without having deducted the 5 % solidarity contribution, the claim for recovering the amount paid in excess has to be lodged with the PSC (RSTP, Article 22 under e). FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 24, p. 73, footnote 108.

FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 24, p. 72.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 3 para 2.

On the understanding that decisions reached by (the DRC or) the DRC Judge may be appealed before the CAS.

FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 24 para 2, p. 73.

RSTP, 2016 edition, Article 24 para 2.

FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 24, p. 73.

FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 23 para 3, p. 70.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 2. See also RSTP, 2016 edition, Article 25 para 6.

FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 25, p. 77.

DRC 6 August 2009, no. 89145. See also DRC 6 August 2009, no. 89391.

DRC 28 September 2007, no. 97938.

DRC 26 October 2012, no. 10121653.

In another unpublished DRC decision of 10 April 2015, the respondent stated that Uzbekistan law had to be applicable to the case and referred to this national law. However, the Chamber highlighted that the main objective of FIFA regulations is to create a standard set of rules to which all the actors within the football community are subject to and can rely on. This objective would not be achievable if the DRC would have to apply national law of a specific country on every dispute brought before it. This should apply, in particular, to the termination of a contract. In this respect, the DRC wished to point out that it is in the interest of football that the termination of a contract is based on uniform criteria rather than on provisions of national law that may vary considerably from country to country. Therefore, in this case the DRC finally deemed that it was not appropriate to apply the principles of a particular national law to the termination of the contract but rather the RSTP’s general principles of law and, where possible, the Chamber’s well-established jurisprudence.

DRC 15 October 2015, no. 1015863.

DRC 27 February 2014, no. 02142147.

For example, on the one hand, in the Netherlands our Dutch KNVB Arbitration Tribunal had to adjudicate in a case between AFC Ajax N.V. against Hatem Belgacem Trabelsi. In this case the Dutch Arbitration Tribunal decided that a unilateral extension option in favour of Ajax according to the Dutch national law was valid. See Dutch KNVB Arbitration Tribunal, 4 June 2004, no. 1022. Also in a more recent case between player Timo Letschert and Roda JC of 29 August 2014, no. 1408, our Dutch KNVB Arbitration Tribunal decided that the unilateral extension option concerned was valid. On the other hand, with regard to this specific subject, the DRC is of the opinion that if the extension option is unilateral in favour of the employer and the player has no say whatsoever in the right of the club to extend the contract or not, such a unilateral extension option is not valid and cannot be binding. This leads to the conclusion that if the unilateral extension option is permitted according to national law, it still risks being deleted and overruled by the opinion of the DRC if this same case is brought before the DRC. In my view, this also creates a lack of certainty and uniformity. Obviously, FIFA can only create the abovementioned equality, uniformity and certainty if the same rules apply to all participants on an international level.

RSTP, 2016 edition, Article 26 para 1.

FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 26, p. 79.

FIFA Circular no. 995 dated 23 September 2005.

FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 25, p. 79.

FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 25, p. 80.

FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 25, p. 79.

FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 25, p. 80.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 6 para 1.

DRC 11 March 2005, no. 35174. See also DRC 2 November 2005, no. 115780.

DRC 4 April 2007, no. 47510b. See also DRC 10 August 2007, no. 87505, and DRC 8 June 2007, no. 671337.

DRC 25 April 2013, no. 04133208.

In a decision of the PSC of 23 September 2014, no. 09141090, the PSC decided that the legal heir of a coach (in this procedure the coach passed away during the investigation phase) is not a party indicated in Article 6 para 1 of the Procedural Rules as a result of which the Single Judge was not in a position to deal with the dispute. With reference to this case it is to be expected that the DRC will follow the same line since the Single Judge emphasized that the decision-making bodies of FIFA have a very strict framework limited by its own regulations, and that it may not act outside the limitations established by said regulations. See also Vandellos.

Furthermore, it is important to know that a claim will only be dealt with by the DRC if there is a legitimate reason for dealing with this claim. Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 5 para 4. See also DRC 10 August 2011, no. 811829.

DRC 22 July 2004, no. 7481. At the time that the player lodged his claim, he was registered as an amateur. However, the actual dispute was related to his previous employment contract concluded with a former club.

See for example DRC 28 September 2006, no. 96338. In this case the club transformed from a professional club to an amateur club (at the end of the 2002/03 season). See also DRC decision of 23 February 2007, no. 271322, with regard to the successor of a former club. In this case the DRC unanimously decided that the successor must be considered as the club that entered into the contractual relationship with the player via the employment contract concluded with the former club. Therefore the successor was liable for any commitment entered into by the respondent towards the player.

CAS 2011/A/2343 CD Universidad Católica v. FIFA, award of 1 March 2012. See also CAS 2012/A/2750 Shakhtar Donetsk v. FIFA & Real Zaragoza, award of 15 October 2012.

In a case before the PSC of 30 January 2012, the Single Judge of the PSC pointed out that, in principle, FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee may only execute decisions taken by the competent FIFA deciding bodies and therefore concluded that the present matter should be heard and decided by the PSC; See PSC 30 January 2012, no. 1121193.

DRC 31 October 2013, no. 10132786.

DRC 12 December 2013, no. 12132748.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 6 para 2.

Dispute Resolution Chamber. http://​www.​fifa.​com/​governance/​disciplinary/​dispute-resolution-system.​html. Accessed 26 July 2016.

It must explicitly follow from the power of attorney that the representative is appointed in the proceedings in front of FIFA.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 9 under b.

See for example DRC 12 January 2006, no. 16453. In this case player X was represented by Mr Y. See also DRC 10 August 2008, no. 871322.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 7.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 14 para 1.

DRC 4 February 2005, no. 25960a.

DRC 17 August 2012, no. 812019.

DRC 26 April 2012, no. 412107.

DRC 26 October 2012, no. 10121653.

DRC 28 June 2013, no. 06132458. See also DRC 29 November 2013, no. 1113766.

DRC 27 May 2014, no. 05142461.

See also DRC 28 August 2014, no. 0814312.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 7 para 2.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 7 para 3.

DRC 27 April 2007, nos. 471066a, 471066b, 471066c and 471066d.

DRC 28 March 2012, no. 03122286.

DRC 6 March 2013, no. 03132423. See also DRC 27 February 2013, no. 02131190, and DRC 25 April 2013, no. 02131190.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 16 para 4.

See for example, DRC 12 December 2013, no. 12132748.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 9 para 2.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 9 para 2.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 6 para 3.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 16 para 11.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 16 para 10.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 9 para 3. A second exchange of correspondence will only be instituted in special cases.

The FIFA administration may, however, request additional statements and/or documents at any time.

DRC 28 October 2011, no. 1011192.

PSC 12 February 2012, no. 212411.

DRC 17 May 2013, no. 05131423. See also DRC 9 March 2011, no. 5112307, from which case it can be derived that the DRC will consider one party’s comments admissible even if they are submitted a few weeks after the time limit set by the FIFA administration.

DRC 4 October 2013, no. 1013439.

DRC 27 November 2014, no. 1114239.

PSC 21 November 2011, no. 11111511.

See for example DRC 31 October 2013, no. 10131039.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 12 paras 1–2.

DRC 28 September 2006, no. 96338. Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 12 para 4.

For example, a copy of a cheque does not prove beyond doubt that the amount referred to on such cheque has indeed been received by the claimant, according to the DRC. See DRC 23 January 2013, no. 0113531.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 12 para 6.

DRC 28 September 2006, no. 96338.

DRC 21 November 2006, no. 116339.

DRC 21 November 2006, no. 611147a. See also an unpublished decision of 6 November 2014, in which case the DRC considered that the documentation could not be considered impartial and, as a result, decided not to give any weight to the relevant statements.

DRC 28 March 2012, no. 3121241.

DRC 6 March 2013, no. 03131723. See also DRC 6 March 2013, no. 0313379.

DRC 15 March 2013, no. 03132824.

DRC 7 April 2011, no. 411330.

DRC 28 March 2012, no. 03122286. Further to this, in the decision of the PSC of 15 August 2012, the Single Judge of the PSC noted that the claimant had provided several press articles and printouts from the internet as well as the statements of certain former employees of the respondent attesting that he had already been dismissed by the respondent at the beginning of February 2010, while the respondent had based its assertion on the termination letter. The Single Judge, referring to the principle of burden of proof recalled that while the termination letter had undisputedly been issued by respondent and received by the claimant towards the end of February 2010, the documentary evidence provided by the claimant in support of the allegations that his dismissal had taken place beforehand, mainly consisted of third party evidence, the authenticity of which could not be verified with certitude and which, consequently, could not amount to a comparable proof of an alleged fact as the termination letter itself. See PSC 15 August 2012, no. 08122106.

DRC 27 February 2013, no. 0213936. See also 18 June 2009, no. 69816. In the latter case the DRC decided that, as a general rule, press releases do not constitute appropriate documentary evidence.

PSC 15 August 2012, no. 08122106.

DRC 31 October 2013, no. 10131359.

PSC 28 August 2013, no. 0813715.

DRC 27 February 2014, no. 0214390.

DRC 31 July 2013, no. 07133206.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 12 para 3.

FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 18, p. 52, footnote 88.

DRC 13 May 2005, no. 55359.

DRC 21 November 2006, no. 116218.

DRC 28 September 2006, no. 961007.

DRC 6 March 2013, no. 03132373.

DRC 14 August 2013, no. 0813427.

DRC 1 October 2015, no. 10151062.

See for example DRC 28 July 2005, no. 75377, DRC 12 January 2006, no. 16716, DRC 27 April 2006, no. 461150, DRC 28 September 2006, no. 96392, and DRC 21 November 2006, no. 611814.

DRC 2 November 2005, no. 115334.

DRC 2 November 2007, no. 117420. See also DRC 14 September 2007, nos. 971056a, 971056b and 971056c, and DRC 27 April 2007, no. 47849.

DRC 19 February 2009, no. 29953b, and DRC 7 May 2008, no. 581140b. See also DRC 12 March 2009, no. 39778.

See also for example DRC 28 May 2010, no. 510583, and DRC 13 December 2010, no. 1210534.

DRC 31 July 2013, no. 07131192. See also DRC 31 July 2013, no. 07131192, DRC 10 July 2013, no. 07132410, DRC 25 April 2013, no. 04131433, DRC 17 January 2014, no. 001143001, and DRC 7 February 2014, no. 02143251.

DRC 18 March 2014, no. 0314130. See also DRC 18 March 2014, no. 0314195.

DRC 27 May 2014, no. 05142679.

DRC 6 November 2014, no. 1114424.

DRC 27 August 2014, no. 08141425.

DRC 27 February 2014, no. 0214390.

DRC 9 November 2004, nos. 114707 and 114708, DRC 2 November 2005, no. 115236, and DRC 12 January 2006, no. 16309.

DRC 28 July 2005, no. 75231. As a side-note, a party can be given the option to pay in instalments. In its case of 9 May 2011, the DRC took note of the fact that the respondent acknowledged its debt in the amount of EUR 20,000 and proposed to settle the matter by paying said amount to the claimant. The DRC observed that the claimant requested the payment of the mentioned amount in one single instalment and that the respondent proposed to pay the amount in dispute in several instalments. In view of all the above, the DRC Judge concluded that the due amount of should be paid in two instalments in order to ensure a proper solution to the present dispute in the interests of both parties. DRC 9 May 2011, no. 5113444.

DRC 25 April 2013, no. 04131433.

DRC 10 July 2013, no. 07132410.

DRC 10 July 2013, no. 07132410.

DRC 6 March 2013, no. 0313789.

DRC 7 February 2014, no. 02143251.

Filing a counterclaim in an appeal procedure before the CAS after 1 January 2010 is no longer possible.

DRC 26 November 2004, 114628, DRC 28 July 2005, no. 75923, DRC 23 September 2005, no. 95855, DRC 17 August, nos. 861174 and 861307.

DRC 31 October 2013, no. 10132457.

DRC 18 December 2012, no. 12121204.

DRC 23 September 2005, no. 95168, DRC 27 April 2006, no. 46400, DRC 28 September 2006, no. 96633, DRC 23 March 2006, no. 36446, and DRC 21 November 2006, no. 6111183a.

DRC 27 April 2006, no. 46400.

DRC 25 April 2013, no. 04132000. See also DRC 31 October 2013, no. 10132457.

See also DRC 12 December 2013, no. 12131160.

Procedural Rules, 2005 edition, Article 15 para 2. See also RSTP, 2005 edition, Article 25 para 2.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 18 para 2. See also RSTP, 2016 edition, Article 25 para 2.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 18 para 1.

RSTP, 2016 edition, Article 25 para 2.

FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 25, p. 75.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Annex 1.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 15 para 1 and Article 18 para 3. With regard to Article 15 of the Procedural Rules, see CAS 2011/A/2563 CD Nacional v. FK Sutjeska, award of 30 March 2012. See also CAS 2011/A/2436 Associaçāo Académica de Coimbra-OAF v. Suwon Samsung Bluewings FC, award of 25 May 2012.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 17 para 2.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 17 para 6.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 17 para 7.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 17 para 3 and Article 9 para 1.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 17 para 5.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 15 para 3. In a CAS procedure the CAS Panel can decide that a party is obliged to pay the procedural costs of the counterparty. In this context, see for example R64.4 of the Procedural Rules of CAS. As a general rule, the Panel has discretion to grant the prevailing party a contribution towards its legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with the proceedings and, particularly the costs of witnesses and interpreters.

DRC 11 March 2005, no. 35185.

DRC 2 November 2005, nos. 6585 and 115999.

DRC 26 October 2006, no. 1061318. See also DRC 3 July 2008, no. 78662.

DRC 31 July 2013, no. 071311395.

FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 22, p. 66.

RSTP, 2016 edition, Annex 3, Article 8.2 para 6. See also RSTP, 2016 edition, Annex 3a, Article 3 para 5. For the avoidance of misunderstanding, in the latter provision reference is made to 30 days.

RSTP, 2016 edition, Annex 3, Article 8.2 para 6. See also RSTP, 2016 edition, Annex 3a, Article 3 para 5 and RSTP, 2016 edition, Article 23 para 4, in which it is laid down in the latter Article that, in cases that are urgent or raise no difficult factual or legal issues, and for decisions on the provisional registration of a player in relation to international clearance in accordance with Annex 3, Article 8, and Annex 3a, the chairman or a person appointed by him, who must be a member of this committee, may then adjudicate as a Single Judge.

FIFA Commentary, explanation Annex 3, p. 104, footnote 139. A decision regarding the provisional registration would not affect the sporting results of the new club for the games in which the player participated, but the player only loses eligibility to play for the new club once the provisional registration has been withdrawn. See in this regard FIFA Commentary, explanation Annex 3, p. 104, footnote 140.

Practice has shown that the Single Judge of the PSC can adjudicate within 7 days.

FIFA Commentary, explanation Annex 3, p. 106.

FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 25, para 5, p. 76.

FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 25, para 5, p. 76.

DRC 28 July 2005, no. 75559.

DRC 12 January 2006, no. 16432. See also DRC 27 April 2006, no. 46610.

DRC 27 April 2006, no. 46610. See also DRC 17 August 2006, no. 86119, and DRC 4 April 2007, no. 47932a.

DRC 3 October 2008, no. 108488.

DRC 31 July 2013, no. 07132435. See also DRC 23 January 2013, nos. 01132519 and 01131531.

DRC 27 August 2014, no. 08142998.

DRC 27 February 2014, no. 02143259.

RSTP, 2016 edition, Article 25 para 1.

FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 25, p. 75.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 14 para 1.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 14 para 1.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 14 para 2.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 14 para 3.

See for example CAS 97/169 M, CAS 2004/A/659 Galatasaray SK v. FIFA and Club Regatas Vasco da Gama & F.J., award of 17 March 2005, CAS 2005/A/994, CAS 2005/A/899 FC Aris Thessaloinki v. FIFA & New Panionios N.F.C., award of 15 July 2005 and CAS 2007/A/1251 Aris FC v. FIFA, award of 27 July 2007. See also CAS 2011/A/2436 AC Coimbra v. Bluewings FC, award of 25 May 2012, and CAS 2011/A/2563 CD Nacional v. FK Sutjeska, award of 30 March 2012. See also CAS 2008/A/1705 Grasshopper v. Alianza Lima, award of 18 June 2009.

Until so far, no FIFA decisions are challenged based on “Denial of Justice”. However, in the event that serious delays in the procedures before the DRC or the DRC Judge (as well as the PSC and the Single Judge of the PSC) continue, FIFA must take into account that the delays in the DRC procedures can trigger parties to bring their case to the CAS as a result of which the delay in the procedure can be established as a delay beyond a reasonable period of time. In other words, then there might be a “Denial of Justice”. In CAS 2014/A/3620 Us Città di Palermo v. Club Atlético Talleres de Córdoba, award of 19 January 2015, the Panel also made reference to the duration of the FIFA proceedings and, due to the length of it, the Panel decided to reduce the costs for the FIFA proceedings.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 14 para 4.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 14 para 5.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 14 para 6.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 15 para 2. See also Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 16 para 13, in which it states that the time limit for filing an appeal shall always begin on receipt of the full version of the decision. Furthermore, all decisions that lead to sporting sanctions may only be communicated with grounds. See Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 15 para 4. The DRC may decide that the amount due must be paid in instalments. See DRC 12 December 2013, no. 12133757.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 19 para 1.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 19 para 2.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 20.

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 1 June 2010.

In my view this should be another reason why more publicity should be given to the DRC decisions.

This Convention will apply to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made in the territory of a state other than the state where the recognition and enforcement of such awards are sought.

FIFA Commentary, explanation Article 22, remark 99, p. 65.

In a case before the PSC of 30 January 2012, the Single Judge pointed out that, in principle, FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee may only execute decisions taken by the competent FIFA deciding bodies and therefore concluded that the present matter should be heard and decided by the Players’ Status Committee. See PSC 30 January 2012, no. 1121193.

FIFA Disciplinary Code, 2011 edition (adopted by the FIFA Executive Committee on 30 May 2011), Article 64 para 1.

FIFA Disciplinary Code, 2011 edition, Article 64 para 4.

Furthermore, in view of the fact that not only natural persons and clubs but also member associations may be considered as offenders, the FIFA Disciplinary Code has an explicit provision applicable to associations. Aside from this, according to FIFA Circular 1270, in order to extend the responsibility for enforcing decisions onto the associations, a provision has been added to the FIFA Disciplinary Code, according to which the association of the deciding body shall bear the responsibility for enforcing any financial or non-financial decision that has been pronounced against a club by a court of arbitration within the relevant association or by a national dispute resolution chamber, both of which must be duly recognized by FIFA. Following said Circular, the same principle applies to a financial or non-financial decision pronounced against a natural person, with the slight but crucial difference that should the natural person be registered (or otherwise have signed a contract in the case of a coach) with a club affiliated to another association in the meantime, the new association shall bear the responsibility for enforcing the relevant decision. Reference must also be made to Article 14 para 1 lit a of the FIFA Statutes, 2016 edition, according to which members have to comply fully with the Statutes, regulations, directives and decisions of FIFA bodies at any time, as well as the decisions of the CAS passed on appeal on the basis of Article 57 para 1 of the FIFA Statutes (from which it follows that FIFA recognises the independent Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) with headquarters in Lausanne (Switzerland) to resolve disputes between FIFA, member associations, confederations, leagues, clubs, players, officials, intermediaries and licensed match agents).

FIFA Disciplinary Code, 2011 edition, Article 81 para 1 and Article 82 para 1.

FIFA Disciplinary Code, 2011 edition, Article 11 para 1.

FIFA Statutes, 2016 edition, Article 55 para 3. See also FIFA Disciplinary Code, 2011 edition, Article 126 paras 1–2 and Article 128.

FIFA Disciplinary Code, 2011 edition, Article 64 para 5 and Article 74.

FIFA Statutes, 2016 edition, Article 58 para 1. See also the CAS Code, edition 1 January 2016, Article R47.

CAS Code, edition 1 January 2016, Article R49. For more information, see www.​tas-cas.​org Accessed 26 July 2016. The precise address of the CAS is Avenue de Beaumonzt 2, CH-1012 Lausanne (Switzerland). See also FIFA Statutes, 2016 edition, Article 57 para 2.

Procedural Rules, 2015 edition, Article 20.

CAS 2004/A/628 IAAF v. USATF & Y, award of 28 June 2004, and CAS 2008/A/1545 Andrea Anderson et al. v. IOC, award of 16 July 2010.

Wild 2011, p. 6. Blackshaw also refers to CAS 97/176 UCI v. J. 7NCK, award of 28 August 1998. See also Kaufmann-Kohler G and Rigozzi A 2015, International Arbitration: Law and Practice in Switzerland, Oxford University Press, Corby Northans.

Blackshaw et al. 2006, pp. 249–250; Mr Frank Oschütz also refers in this regard to CAS 96/149 A.C. v. FINA, award of 13 March 1997 (CAS Digest I, pp. 251, 258; p. 250, footnote 21).

See for example, two awards of the CAS regarding the issue of loan: CAS 2012/A/2908 Panionios GSS FC v. Parná Clube, award of 9 April 2013, and CAS 2013/A/3119 Dundee United FC v. Club Atlético Velez Sarsfield, award of 20 November 2013, whereby both panels surprisingly came to a different conclusion. See also Monbaliu 2014. In my opinion the “stare decisis-principle’ cannot be a license to deviate from such important legal basic principles such as loan and the applicability of training compensation. See also the following two CAS awards: CAS 2014/A/3652 KRC Genk c. LOSC Lille Métropole, award of 5 June 2015 and CAS 2014/A/3500 FC Hradec Kralove v. Genoa Cricket and Football Club, award of 23 September 2014. In both CAS cases the CAS Panels also came to a different and opposing conclusion with regard to the questions whether or not a provision had to be interpreted with retroactive effect.

CAS Code, edition 1 January 2016, Article S20.

See the website of the CAS. http://​www.​tas-cas.​org/​en/​index.​html. Accessed 26 July 2016.

FIFA Statutes, 2016 edition, Article 57 para 1.

FIFA Circular no. 827 dated 10 December 2002.

Wild 2011, p. 9.

Statutes of the Bodies Working for the Settlement of Sports-related Disputes, Article S.1.

For an extended view, see Reeb 2006.

CAS Code, edition 1 January 2016, Article R27.

See Rigozzi and Hasler 2013. See also Mavromati and Reeb 2015.

CAS Code, edition 1 January 2016, Article R29. CAS includes a Court Office composed of the Secretary General and one or more Counsel, who may represent the Secretary General when required. See CAS Code, edition 1 January 2016, Article S.22.

CAS Code, edition 1 January 2016, Article R30.

CAS Code, edition 1 January 2016, Article R37.

Under well-established CAS jurisprudence, a decision of a financial nature issued by a private Swiss association is not enforceable whenever it is appealed and that, consequently, it may not be stayed. See for example, CAS 2004/A/780 Christian Maicon Henning v. Prudentópolis SC & Prudentópolis SC v. Christian Maicon Henning & Eintracht Frankfurt Fußball AG, award of 18 July 2005. See also CAS 2004/A/780 Christiaan Maicon Henning v/Prudentopolis Esporte Clube & FIFA, award of 6 January 2005.

CAS Code, edition 1 January 2016, Article R64.1.

The time limits before the CAS are much stricter than time limits in FIFA procedures.

CAS Code, edition 1 January 2016, Article R64 and R65.

In practice we take note of the fact that respondents do not pay their part. In other words, the other party will often (have to) pay.

CAS Code, edition 1 January 2016, Article R31.

CAS Code, edition 1 January 2016, Article R51. See Article R56 and R57.

As follows from CAS 2010/A/2108. See also CAS Code, edition 1 January 2016, Article R55.

CAS Code, edition 1 January 2016, Article R57.

See also http://​www.​tas-cas.​org/​en/​e-filing/​e-filing.​html. Accessed 26 July 2016. From the CAS website it follows, each case is identified by the number allocated to it in the CAS Roll. In order to benefit from the e-filing service for the case in question, the user(s) must send a written request to the CAS Court Office by way of the “Case Registration Form”.