posted Apr 13, 2011 11:16 PM by Tyler Durden
The recent
letter from the CSA quotes Article 13 (1)(g) of the FIFA
Statues. Article 13 deals with Member obligations.
Specifically;
Members have the
following obligations:
(g) to
manage
their affairs independently and ensure that their own affairs are not influenced by any third
parties; |
The CSA clarifies
for us that third parties include the Courts and
government entities. Their letter goes on to state that all CSA Members
are required to adopt a dispute resolution clause. But FIFA Article 13
has nothing to say about disputes. To find out what the FIFA Statutes
have to say
about disputes you need to look at Article 64 Obligation.
1. The
Confederations, Members and Leagues shall agree to recognise CAS as
an independent judicial authority and to
ensure that their members, affiliated Players and Officials comply
with the decisions passed by CAS. The same obligation
shall apply to licensed match and players’ agents.
2. Recourse
to
ordinary courts of law is prohibited unless specifically provided for
in the FIFA regulations.
3. The
Associations shall insert a clause in their statutes or regulations,
stipulating that it is prohibited to take disputes in the
Association or disputes affecting Leagues, members of Leagues, clubs,
members of clubs, Players, Officials and other Association Officials
to ordinary courts of law, unless
the FIFA regulations or
binding legal provisions
specifically provide for or stipulate recourse to
ordinary courts of law. Instead of recourse to
ordinary courts of law, provision shall be made for arbitration. Such
disputes shall be taken to an independent and duly constituted
arbitration tribunal recognised under the rules of the Association or
Confederation or to CAS.
The
Associations
shall also ensure that this stipulation is implemented in the
Association, if necessary by imposing a binding obligation on its
members. The Associations shall impose sanctions on any party that
fails to respect this obligation and ensure that any appeal against
such sanctions shall likewise be strictly submitted to arbitration, and
not to ordinary courts of law. |
I bolded the
interesting part of the above section as it appears that FIFA does in
fact provide some guidance as to when it is alright to take disputes to
ordinary courts of law. The Societies Act of Alberta, under which the
ASA is registered, is a binding legal provision
that specifically provides for recourse to ordinary courts of
law.
The previous Board of the ASA agreed that the Societies Act
held jurisdiction when they sought permission from the courts to extend
the deadline for the AGM from January to April, to better be able to
comply with financial reporting requirements described in the Act. Nor
did they deny the courts order to hold the SGM.
Those who are currently experiencing the CSA hearing process obviously
felt that the Societies Act was appropriate as well, as it was under
the auspices of the Act that they sought to hold the SGM.
So what about the CSA? Do they feel that the Act has jurisdiction?
Apparently during March and again at the last CSA board meeting they
did feel the Act had jurisdiction. How so?
On March 23rd the CSA Appeals committee denied
Mr Charpentiers application for leave to appeal the results of the ASA
SGM. Apparently Mr Charpentier had sent a letter to Mr Maestracci in
early Feburary (3 days after the CSA SGM). The issue was again brought
up at the most recent CSA Board meeting and the request for
leave to appeal was denied by the Board.
The rationale given by both the CSA Appeal committee and the CSA Board
was that they lacked jurisdiction.
All three parties, by their actions, have recognized that the Societies
Act of Alberta and decisions based on it are binding on all the parties
involved. This would appear to satisfy the above section of the FIFA
Article 64.
A while back the Australian Soccer Association, with the ironic
acronym ASA, was suspended by the FIFA. It is now back in the FIFA fold
under
the name the Football Federation of Australia. You would think that its
bylaws and the like would have been reviewed by the FIFA. Interestingly
here is what the FFA's Constitution has to say about disputes:
8.2
Referral of disputes
A
member must comply with the Grievance Procedure and must itself, and
must ensure that its Affiliates, refer all Grievances to the dispute
resolution body established in accordance with the Grievance Procedure
and must not, and must ensure that its Affiliates do not, commence any
suit or proceeding in any court or tribunal until the Grievance Procedure has
been exhausted. |
Once again bolding is mine.
Document can be found here: Football Federation of Australia Constitution
|
|
|
|