Not sure how the sanctions would comply with EU Company and Labour Law to be honest.

However, isn’t the ‘freedom of movement’ principle already infringed to an extent by the implementation of transfer windows? It restricts the movement of players within Europe to two periods of time. It leads me to believe that there is some agreement in place or some loophole in the EU laws which allows FIFA rules to directly govern the conduct of clubs.

Furthermore, the ban on Chelsea is because it breached FIFA laws and regulations. It is not imposed to restrict movement of players, but a punishment (and a deterrence) for such conduct.

Not sure how the sanctions would comply with EU Company and Labour Law to be honest.

However, isn’t the ‘freedom of movement’ principle already infringed to an extent by the implementation of transfer windows? It restricts the movement of players within Europe to two periods of time.

It leads me to believe that there is some agreement in place or some loophole in the EU laws which allows FIFA rules to directly govern the conduct of clubs.

Furthermore, the ban on Chelsea is because it breached FIFA laws and regulations. It is not imposed to restrict movement of players, but a punishment (and a deterrence) for such conduct.

But where does company law trump the ‘laws’ of sporting associations? Is this not a severe restriction of ability to compete? What, for example, if a player makes the case that Chelsea want to sign him and Chelsea concur but the ‘ban’ prevents the transaction. Could the player not challenge the ruling under EEC employment legislation…freedom of movement etc. etc.?

I just feel, as a non legal expert, that this is doomed to failure under company, not sporting, law.

I believe under FIFA laws (in this case, the contravention came under the Regulation of the Status and Transfer of Players 2008), any appeal of a decision goes to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland. The same Court that decided on the Adrian Mutu case.

Either way, Chelsea will appeal the decision. If they are lucky, they will get the sanction halved following the precedent regarding Roma in 2006. However, it may take a while for the dispute to be examined, so much so, that a decision may not be made before the January transfer window. If that is the case, a 1 transfer window sanction will apply to the the summer transfer window of 2010.

To anyone that thinks the ban is excessive, it is not an arbitrary ruling FIFA has made. Such conduct is found in the regulation mentioned prior, and is spelt out very clearly (Article 17, paragraphs 3 and 4). Chelsea should have been aware of the potential consequences of their actions and they only have themselves to blame.

And this case is very different to tapping up. Tapping up doesn’t involve any attempt to force a player to breach their contract, but it seems to gauge whether there is any interest on the side of the player before placing a bid. It is certainly unprofessional, but not like what has happened here.

No comparison with the Ronaldo case I’m afraid. People may not like Madrid’s public posturing but no rules were broken.

And it’s not a campaign against English clubs either. FC Sion of Switzerland were hit with the exact same punishment for the same offence and the player involed got the same suspension time.

Not sure why Chelsea are appealing to the Court of Arbitration for Sport though? This is a clear case for the ordinary courts in my view. Clear restriction of ability to compete. There is surely something in corporate anti-competitive legislation that pisses all over this sort of thing!

Any lawyers out there?

In regards to tom, kakuta when signed was 15, he didnt have a contract with lens. What he had was a pre-contract. That isnt really a contract either more an understanding since if kakuta could sign a contract legally under french law he would have. Its like asking a 15 year old to sign a contract at wallmart at 16 he will recieve $200, legally the 15 old isnt allowed to sign said contract because he is too young.