Football » English » Open Discussion

FC Sion legal battle

By kingjaime - 19-10-2011 18:47

[BVB]

I expect many of us have heard bits and pieces about this, but here's a recap... Relevant history is "The Webster Ruling", where Andy Webster signed for Wigan Athletic in late 2006 while still under contract to Hearts. He utilized a FIFA regulation (which was technically in existence since late 2001 and with relevant revision in effect since mid-2005) which, like the Bosman Ruling, was intended to bring footballers "employment rights" more in line with those for European workers in other industries. Europe was the genesis but FIFA accepted for the world game. Effectively, Article 17 held that for a player who signed a contract under the age of 28, regardless of the length, he may buy himself out of it, having given notice, at any point 3 years after signing. He must be moving abroad for any of this to apply. Article 16 held "a contract cannot be unilaterally terminated during the course of a season" (in other words, the player cannot use the rule during a season without agreement from his club). Depending on the circumstances and reason for "breaching contract", but mainly based on outstanding wages for the duration, an amount of compensation would be payable to the club. In Webster's case, FIFA's dispute resolution panel set compensation at £625k but following appeals the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), the highest arbitration/legal authority within the sporting world, reduced this to £150k. No other demands were made against Wigan and no "punishment" imposed. (As an amusing footnote: Webster played just 4 times for Wigan, 38 matches total over the next 4 years, and in 2011 moved back to Hears..,) Now, to the direct matter at hand... The final CAS decision was made in January 2008. In February 2008, Swiss Super League side FC Sion signed Egyptian international goalkeeper Essam El-Hadary who had 2 years remaining on his contract with Egyptian Premier League side Al-Ahly, who did not agree to sell. El-Hadary believed the situation would require payment of c£340k compensation, as the value of his remaining wages. However, important differences to the Webster situation came to light, most specifically that Webster had given notice just before the end of the season, with the intention of moving off-season. Article 16 of FIFA's relevant rules specified a player cannot invoke the rule without agreement from his club *during an active season*. El-Hadary was not in compliance with this. Therefore, in early March, he returned to Al-Ahly and was fined around £35k and suspended for 3 weeks by them as punishment. But Sion claimed their contract with him was valid and that he was their player. In April 2008, FIFA gave permission for the Swiss FA to register the player and for him to play for Sion, although they stated this was "without prejudice" (i.e. not final and binding as a resolution to all issues) and specifically "the ruling has no bearing on any case Al-Ahly might bring for breach of contract, against the player or the club" and the decision was "pending the outcome of a possible contractual labour dispute between the player and Al-Ahly". Things dragged on and on, it was not until April 2009 that FIFA made what they deemed a final decision on the matter. El-Hadary was reportedly fined around £800k and banned from all football for 4 months and FC Sion were given a 12-month transfer ban. Sion ignored the transfer ban, continued to sign players, 6 in total, and took action in the Swiss Civil Court over the matter. They were granted the right to field these players and did so repeatedly in Swiss league matches. However, FIFA statutes prohibit the resolution of football matters in the courts (requiring them to be heard through their own dispute panels and, if finally necessary, CAS). The issue came to a head when Sion won the Swiss Cup in 2010 and so entered qualifying for the 2011 Europa League. They had a number of those players in their squad for both legs of their qualifier against Celtic and won 3-1 on aggregate. UEFA subsequently removed them from the competition and reinstated Celtic. Sion again took the matter to the Swiss courts and won an injunction that said they should be allowed back in, with UEFA to be fined 1,000 Swiss Francs for every day until it happened, but this has been ignored by UEFA, who hold that the competition is not subject to Swiss law and may only be ruled upon by CAS, and Sion failed in a last-minute attempt to force UEFA to allow them, rather than Celtic, to play Rennes on Thursday. Sion's President/Owner wanted UEFA President Michel Platini arrested for ignoring the injunction. Platini, who has not been arrested, will appear before a Swiss judge today to explain why Sion have not been reinstated. UEFA maintain, in-line with the aforementioned FIFA statutes, they want the case resolved by CAS. Sion do not consider CAS "sufficiently independent of UEFA". (It is a bit complicated. Hence the length of the post.) So, opinions? Are Sion wasting their time? Is their owner/president simply a bit of a maverick lunatic? Or, as I somewhat suspect, are we looking at a potentially seismic ruling, not so dissimilar in significance to the Bosman Ruling, wherein the right of FIFA/UEFA to demand all matters regarding their competitions, rules, etc be resolved through their approved channels (their own arbitration panels, followed and concluded by the Court of Arbitration for Sport) is defeated. Forcing them to accept the right of clubs and players to pursue matters through the courts. Let's not forget the Bosman Ruling (1995) was not made by FIFA, any of their panels, or CAS, but by the European Court of Justice. If it ultimately comes to it, I can't see that FIFA/CAS can be truly granted ultimate power to decide on things. Perhaps it has only carried on this way for so long because until now clubs have accepted that system. In much the same way, until Bosman took his case to the ECJ, the contract/transfer rules for players had not been challenged, is Sion on the verge of proving the catalyst for a seismic change in the rules governing, uh, ultimate governance of the game?I expect many of us have heard bits and pieces about this, but here's a recap...

Relevant history is "The Webster Ruling", where Andy Webster signed for Wigan Athletic in late 2006 while still under contract to Hearts. He utilized a FIFA regulation (which was technically in existence since late 2001 and with relevant revision in effect since mid-2005) which, like the Bosman Ruling, was intended to bring footballers "employment rights" more in line with those for European workers in other industries. Europe was the genesis but FIFA accepted for the world game.

Effectively, Article 17 held that for a player who signed a contract under the age of 28, regardless of the length, he may buy himself out of it, having given notice, at any point 3 years after signing. He must be moving abroad for any of this to apply. Article 16 held "a contract cannot be unilaterally terminated during the course of a season" (in other words, the player cannot use the rule during a season without agreement from his club). Depending on the circumstances and reason for "breaching contract", but mainly based on outstanding wages for the duration, an amount of compensation would be payable to the club. In Webster's case, FIFA's dispute resolution panel set compensation at £625k but following appeals the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), the highest arbitration/legal authority within the sporting world, reduced this to £150k. No other demands were made against Wigan and no "punishment" imposed.

(As an amusing footnote: Webster played just 4 times for Wigan, 38 matches total over the next 4 years, and in 2011 moved back to Hears..,)

Now, to the direct matter at hand... The final CAS decision was made in January 2008. In February 2008, Swiss Super League side FC Sion signed Egyptian international goalkeeper Essam El-Hadary who had 2 years remaining on his contract with Egyptian Premier League side Al-Ahly, who did not agree to sell. El-Hadary believed the situation would require payment of c£340k compensation, as the value of his remaining wages.

However, important differences to the Webster situation came to light, most specifically that Webster had given notice just before the end of the season, with the intention of moving off-season. Article 16 of FIFA's relevant rules specified a player cannot invoke the rule without agreement from his club *during an active season*. El-Hadary was not in compliance with this.

Therefore, in early March, he returned to Al-Ahly and was fined around £35k and suspended for 3 weeks by them as punishment. But Sion claimed their contract with him was valid and that he was their player. In April 2008, FIFA gave permission for the Swiss FA to register the player and for him to play for Sion, although they stated this was "without prejudice" (i.e. not final and binding as a resolution to all issues) and specifically "the ruling has no bearing on any case Al-Ahly might bring for breach of contract, against the player or the club" and the decision was "pending the outcome of a possible contractual labour dispute between the player and Al-Ahly".

Things dragged on and on, it was not until April 2009 that FIFA made what they deemed a final decision on the matter. El-Hadary was reportedly fined around £800k and banned from all football for 4 months and FC Sion were given a 12-month transfer ban. Sion ignored the transfer ban, continued to sign players, 6 in total, and took action in the Swiss Civil Court over the matter. They were granted the right to field these players and did so repeatedly in Swiss league matches. However, FIFA statutes prohibit the resolution of football matters in the courts (requiring them to be heard through their own dispute panels and, if finally necessary, CAS).

The issue came to a head when Sion won the Swiss Cup in 2010 and so entered qualifying for the 2011 Europa League. They had a number of those players in their squad for both legs of their qualifier against Celtic and won 3-1 on aggregate.

UEFA subsequently removed them from the competition and reinstated Celtic. Sion again took the matter to the Swiss courts and won an injunction that said they should be allowed back in, with UEFA to be fined 1,000 Swiss Francs for every day until it happened, but this has been ignored by UEFA, who hold that the competition is not subject to Swiss law and may only be ruled upon by CAS, and Sion failed in a last-minute attempt to force UEFA to allow them, rather than Celtic, to play Rennes on Thursday. Sion's President/Owner wanted UEFA President Michel Platini arrested for ignoring the injunction. Platini, who has not been arrested, will appear before a Swiss judge today to explain why Sion have not been reinstated. UEFA maintain, in-line with the aforementioned FIFA statutes, they want the case resolved by CAS. Sion do not consider CAS "sufficiently independent of UEFA".

(It is a bit complicated. Hence the length of the post.)


So, opinions?

Are Sion wasting their time? Is their owner/president simply a bit of a maverick lunatic?

Or, as I somewhat suspect, are we looking at a potentially seismic ruling, not so dissimilar in significance to the Bosman Ruling, wherein the right of FIFA/UEFA to demand all matters regarding their competitions, rules, etc be resolved through their approved channels (their own arbitration panels, followed and concluded by the Court of Arbitration for Sport) is defeated. Forcing them to accept the right of clubs and players to pursue matters through the courts.

Let's not forget the Bosman Ruling (1995) was not made by FIFA, any of their panels, or CAS, but by the European Court of Justice.

If it ultimately comes to it, I can't see that FIFA/CAS can be truly granted ultimate power to decide on things. Perhaps it has only carried on this way for so long because until now clubs have accepted that system. In much the same way, until Bosman took his case to the ECJ, the contract/transfer rules for players had not been challenged, is Sion on the verge of proving the catalyst for a seismic change in the rules governing, uh, ultimate governance of the game?

 

Page 1

 

Reply

Last Message

Re: FC Sion legal battle

By kingjaime - 19-10-2011 18:52

[BVB]

I should also add, as a musing, whether you think the punishments that are at the root of all this, were "right". Should Sion have been punished for what could arguably be said to be the conduct of the player? Should the issue of ramifications of their transfer ban not have been thoroughly thrashed out either before it was applied or else as soon as Sion attempted to file the paperwork for the first of those 6 signings. Were UEFA/FIFA content to leave the matter unresolved and just hope Sion wouldn't qualify for any high-profile international competition? Why were they permitted to play Celtic? It hardly says much for the organization and speed of action within UEFA... If the ban is just, surely all domestic Swiss league teams must have some grounds to claim for every point, cup progress, league place lost to Sion, what with them utilizing up to 6 "illegal" players? Seems to me a right bloody mess and could well end with UEFA/FIFA having the fairly cosy little environment whereby any appeals beyond them currently have to end with the CAS... And maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing.I should also add, as a musing, whether you think the punishments that are at the root of all this, were "right". Should Sion have been punished for what could arguably be said to be the conduct of the player? Should the issue of ramifications of their transfer ban not have been thoroughly thrashed out either before it was applied or else as soon as Sion attempted to file the paperwork for the first of those 6 signings. Were UEFA/FIFA content to leave the matter unresolved and just hope Sion wouldn't qualify for any high-profile international competition? Why were they permitted to play Celtic? It hardly says much for the organization and speed of action within UEFA...

If the ban is just, surely all domestic Swiss league teams must have some grounds to claim for every point, cup progress, league place lost to Sion, what with them utilizing up to 6 "illegal" players?

Seems to me a right bloody mess and could well end with UEFA/FIFA having the fairly cosy little environment whereby any appeals beyond them currently have to end with the CAS... And maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing.

Re: FC Sion legal battle

By heddo - 20-10-2011 00:20

what would be the point in having ruling bodies in any sport, but then ruling bodies have to practice legality, if grey areas arise in any new practice then it would seem the above situation comes to light, it would seem a simple decision or two have to be made, have UEFA acted accordingly, have Sion acted accordingly, have individuals overstepped any rules , was there any applicable rules in place, chance is , that a legal loophole will be uncovered, probably with the effect of making the courts and lawyers busier and undermining UEFA.. no wonder the swiss are neutral.. it also highlights further how terrible celtic are in europe..what would be the point in having ruling bodies in any sport, but then ruling bodies have to practice legality, if grey areas arise in any new practice then it would seem the above situation comes to light, it would seem a simple decision or two have to be made, have UEFA acted accordingly, have Sion acted accordingly, have individuals overstepped any rules , was there any applicable rules in place, chance is , that a legal loophole will be uncovered, probably with the effect of making the courts and lawyers busier and undermining UEFA..
no wonder the swiss are neutral..
it also highlights further how terrible celtic are in europe..

 

Page 1