Introduction: The new WADA Code 2015
Day 1: The impact of the revised World Anti-Doping Code on the work of National Anti-Doping Agencies
Day 2: The “Athlete Patient” and the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code: Competing Under Medical Treatment
Day 4: Ensuring proportionate sanctions under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code

Editor's note

Howard Jacobs is solo practitioner in the Los Angeles suburb of Westlake Village, California. Mr. Jacobs has been identified by various national newspapers and publications as one of the leading sports lawyers in the world. His law practice focuses on the representation of athletes in all types of disputes, with a particular focus on the defense of athletes charged with doping offenses.Mr. Jacobs has represented numerous professional athletes, Olympic athletes, world record holders,  and amateur athletes in disputes involving doping, endorsements, unauthorized use of name and likeness, salary issues, team selection issues, and other matters.  He is at the forefront of many cutting edge legal issues that affect athletes, winning cases that have set precedents that have benefited the athlete community. More information is available at www.athleteslawyer.com.

Introduction

Historically, under the anti-doping rules of most organizations (including the World Anti-Doping Code), the concept of “strict liability” has meant that the proof of intent (or lack thereof) was irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the athlete has violated the anti-doping rules. However, so long as the rules provide for sanction ranges instead of a set sanction for all offenses, the issue of intent to dope has always been somewhat relevant to the issue of sanction length. The 2015 World Anti-Doping Code, with its potential four-year sanctions for a first violation based on whether or not the anti-doping rule violation was intentional, will make the question of intent an important issue in virtually every anti-doping case. This article analyzes these new rules allowing for four-year sanctions for a first violation, in the context of how intent (or lack of intent) will be proven.

I.         Why Intent Matters under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code

It should be remembered that under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code (“WADC”). intent is still irrelevant to the issue of whether or not an athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation.  This is clear from the Comment to Article 2.1.1: “An anti-doping rule violation is committed under this Article without regard to
an Athlete’s Fault. This rule has been referred to in various CAS decisions as “Strict Liability”. An Athlete’s Fault is taken into consideration in determining the Consequences of this anti-doping rule violation under Article 10. This principle has consistently been upheld by CAS.”

Article 10 of the WADC – dealing with length of sanction, has always taken “intent” into account in determining whether or not a sanction should be reduced[1]. In other words, a sanction that would ordinarily be 2 years could be reduced to no sanction where the athlete had no fault or negligence whatsoever, or could be reduced to some degree if the athlete was not significantly at fault or negligent. In this way, intent is indirectly relevant to the issue of how much, if at all, an otherwise applicable sanction (sometimes referred to as the “default sanction”) could be eliminated or reduced. This is because an athlete who can prove that he or she did not intend to violate the anti-doping rules would be much more likely to establish a lack of significant fault or negligence in committing the violation in the first place.

Now, however, the 2015 WADC makes the issue of intent directly relevant to the first issue of the length of the default sanction itself. Therefore, intent is now not only relevant to the issue of reducing the default sanction, but is also relevant to the threshold issue of what the default sanction is in the first place.

Specifically, Art. 10.2.1 of the 2015 WADC provides: 

“The period of Ineligibility shall be four years where:

10.2.1.1 The anti-doping rule violation does not involve a Specified Substance, unless the athlete or other Person can establish that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional.

10.2.1.2 The anti-doping rule violation involves a Specified Substance and the anti-doping organization can establish that the anti- doping rule violation was intentional.”

Art. 10.2.2 of the 2015 WADC goes on to state that “if Article 10.2.1 does not apply, the period of Ineligibility shall be two years.” Therefore, under the 2015 WADC, the default sanction is determined as follows: 

1.        where the violation does not involve a “Specified Substance,” the default sanction is four years unless the athlete can prove that the violation was “not intentional;” if the athlete meets this burden of proving “lack of intent,” then the default sanction is two years.

2.        where the violation involves a “Specified Substance,” the default sanction is two years unless the National Anti-Doping Organization (“NADO”) or the International Federation (“IF”) can prove that the violation was “intentional;” if the NADO or IF meets this burden of proving “intent,” then the default sanction is four years.

In either case, “intent” is now directly relevant to the length of the default sanction; the only difference is who bears the burden of proving “intent” or “lack of intent,” depending on whether or not the substance involved is a Specified Substance.

II.        How will the NADO / IF prove “intent” in cases involving “Specified Substances”?

Many older CAS cases have discussed the difficulty that a NADO or IF faces in proving that an athlete “intended” to use a prohibited substance, in their discussions of the justification of the “strict liability” rule.[2]

While this difficulty in proving that an athlete “intended” to use a prohibited substance to enhance their sport performance has not changed in theory, it has changed in practice with the definitions that WADA provided for proving “intent” within the meaning of Art. 10.2.1 of the 2015 WADC.  Specifically, Art. 10.2.3 now provides the following definition of “intent:” 

“As used in Articles 10.2 and 10.3, the term “intentional” is meant to identify those athletes who cheat. The term, therefore, requires that the athlete or other Person engaged in conduct which he or she knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk. An anti-doping rule violation resulting from an adverse analytical finding for a substance which is only prohibited In-Competition shall be rebuttably presumed to be not “intentional” if the substance is a Specified Substance and the athlete can establish that the Prohibited Substance was used out-of-Competition. An anti-doping rule violation resulting from an adverse analytical finding for a substance which is only prohibited In-Competition shall not be considered “intentional” if the substance is not a Specified Substance and the athlete can establish that the Prohibited Substance was used out-of-Competition in a context unrelated to sport performance.”

Therefore, for the purpose of proving “intent” within the meaning of WADC Art. 10.2.1, in the case of Specified Substances, the NADO / IF can meet its burden by proving simply that the athlete engaged in conduct where the athlete “knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk.” However, practical realities of this “proof” must be considered against the following questions:

(i)             How will this definition of “intent” contained in WADC Art. 10.2.3 be read in connection with the seemingly contradictory comment to 2015 WADC Art. 4.2.2 that specified substances are “substances which are more likely to have been consumed by an Athlete for a purpose other than the enhancement of sport performance”?

(ii)           How will an athlete who knowingly takes a “risky supplement” without knowing that the supplement contained a banned “Specified Substance” be viewed in connection with this definition of “intent” contained in WADC Art. 10.2.3?

Furthermore, in cases where an athlete intentionally used a supplement, but the athlete did not know that the supplement contained a prohibited substance (and where the lack of knowledge was reasonable, such as in cases involving misleading ingredient lists), what will the NADO /IF be required to prove? Will the burden be to prove that the athlete knew or should have known that the supplement contained a prohibited substance, or will it be sufficient to prove that the type of supplement or the supplement manufacturer itself could be viewed as risky, such that the athlete’s use of the supplement could be considered as a manifest disregard of a significant risk, for which the athlete should receive a four-year sanction? The manner in which CAS tribunals resolve this use could dramatically impact the applicable “default sanction” in cases involving nutritional supplements.

III.       How does the athlete prove “no intent” in cases not involving “Specified Substances”?

In cases that do not involve “Specified Substances,” the athlete carries the burden of proving “no intent” to avoid the application of a four-year default sanction. In many cases, therefore, this burden of proof will mean the difference between a career-ending sanction and one from which an athlete could potentially return. Therefore, the manner in which this burden of proof is applied by the arbitral tribunals will be critical.

As mentioned above, Art. 10.2.3 of the 2015 WADC provides that “an anti-doping rule violation resulting from an adverse analytical finding for a substance which is only prohibited In-Competition shall not be considered “intentional” if the substance is not a Specified Substance and the athlete can establish that the Prohibited Substance was used out-of-Competition in a context unrelated to sport performance.” Therefore, in cases involving non-specified stimulants, an athlete can avoid a “default sanction” of four years by proving that the stimulant was used out-of-Competition in a context unrelated to sport performance. This raises a number of important issues:

            a)         will arbitral tribunals accept a low concentration level of the prohibited stimulant in the anti-doping test, which low levels would be inconsistent with the purposeful use of the stimulant “in Competition,” as sufficient proof of out-of-Competition use?

            b)        will arbitral tribunals accept a polygraph finding that the athlete was truthful in stating that he did not use the prohibited substance at issue on the day of the competition at issue as sufficient proof of out-of-Competition use ? [3]

            c)         how will arbitral tribunals analyze the issue of whether the out-of-Competition use of the stimulant was “in a context unrelated to sport performance?”  As has been seen in past cases, arguments can be made that virtually any substance that an athlete consumes, including food, is done in a context related to sport performance.  Therefore, in order to avoid an analysis that renders this phrase meaningless, arbitral tribunals must apply a common-sense and realistic meaning to the issue of when something is consumed in a context that is actually related to sport performance, as opposed (for example) to consuming a product for general health purposes.

For substances that are banned at all times, such as anabolic agents, the analysis of “in-competition” vs. “out-of-Competition’ use will be unnecessary. In these cases, in order to avoid a “default sanction” of four years, the athlete will be required to prove that he or she did not take the substance intentionally. It is therefore critical to consider what will happen to the athlete who has no idea what caused his or her positive test, and who, despite investigation, is unable to prove the source of the prohibited substance. For these athletes, how will arbitral tribunals analyze this issue, which could mean the difference between a career-ending four-year sanction and a “default sanction” of two years?  Some important questions arise:

            a)         Will the athlete’s failure to prove how the prohibited substance entered his or her system (within the meaning of 2015 WADC Art. 10.4 and Art. 10.5.2) automatically result in a 4-year default sanction? Arbitral tribunals should recognize the difference between (i) proving the source of the prohibited substance as a pre-condition to receiving a reduction in the “default sanction,” and (ii) the requirement of proving “no intent” in order to avoid the application of a “default sanction” of four years. An athlete should be able to prove “no intent” without proving the source of the prohibited substance, at least in the abstract.

            b)        Assuming that the failure to prove how the prohibited substance entered the athlete’s system is not automatically equated with intent to use the prohibited substance, how will the athlete who cannot prove the source of the prohibited substance prove lack of intent? Will it be sufficient, for example, for an athlete to submit a polygraph finding that the he was truthful in stating that he did not knowingly use the prohibited substance at issue, as sufficient proof of lack of intent, such that the applicable “default sanction” is two years instead of four? Or, even in the absence of a polygraph exam, could an athlete establish “no intent” within the meaning of 2015 WADC Art. 10.2.1.1 solely through her own credible testimony that she did not knowingly ingest the prohibited substance at issue? These will be important evidentiary issues for arbitral tribunals to consider, and the manner in which they are determined will have a significant impact on the sanction length for many athletes under the 2015 WADC.

IV.       Conclusion

The concept of giving longer sanctions to athletes who intend to cheat, and shorter sanctions to those athletes who do not have such an intent, is certainly laudable, and the 2015 WADC has introduced a number of new legal and evidentiary issues in an effort to further differentiate between intentional and non-intentional “dopers.” However, as is often the case, the 2015 WADC has provided very broad concepts, which the arbitral tribunals will have to interpret and apply to real-world situations. How these general concepts are applied in reality will – for many athletes – mean the difference between a two-year sanction that is “merely” devastating and a four-year sanction that is career ending. In those cases where an athlete has no idea where the prohibited substance came from, the arbitral tribunals must be very careful in how they apply these new concepts.

 These new concepts related to “intent” will change the manner in which arbitral tribunals address the preliminary issue of the applicable “default sanction”. They will not materially affect the manner in which these tribunals address the issues related to the reduction in the “default sanction.” However, because of the limitations in how much the “default sanction can be reduced (in cases of no significant fault, the maximum reduction in the “default sanction” is 50 percent), the determination of this new “intent” issue as related to the “default sanction” will be doubly important in cases where the older “exceptional circumstances” rules are being asserted as a basis for sanction reduction.

[1] See, e.g., 2015 WADC Art. 10.4: “if an athlete or other Person establishes in an individual case that he or she bears no fault or negligence, then the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated”; and Art. 10.5 on the Reduction of the Period of Ineligibility based on No Significant Fault or Negligence.

[2] See, e.g., C. v. FINA (CAS 95/141) Digest of CAS Awards, Vol. 1, at p. 220, par. 13: “Indeed, if for each case the sports federations had to prove the intentional nature of the act (desire to dope to enhance one’s performance) in order to be able to give it the force of an offence, the fight against doping would become practically impossible”.

[3] Prior arbitral tribunals have already accepted that polygraph test results are admissible in anti-doping proceedings. See, e.g., UCI v. Contador (CAS 2011/A//2384).

Luis Suarez did it again. The serial biter that he is couldn’t refrain its impulse to taste a bit of Chiellini’s shoulder (not really the freshest meat around though). Notwithstanding his amazing theatrical skills and escaping the sight of the referee, Suarez could not in the information age get away with this unnoticed. Seconds after the incident, the almighty “social networks” were already bruising with evidence, outrage and commentaries over Suarez’s misdeed. Since then, many lawyers have weighed in (here, here and here) on the potential legal consequences faced by Suarez. Yesterday FIFA’s disciplinary committee decided to sanction him with a 4 months ban from any football activity and a 9 International games ban. In turn, Suarez announced that he would challenge the decision[1], and plans on going to the Court of Arbitration for Sport if necessary[2]. Let’s be the advocates of the cannibal! 

Three legal axes of defence appear credible to us: No serious infringement, preventative self-defence and the crocodile syndrome.

No serious infringement

If FIFA is to sanction Suarez a posteriori, it needs to demonstrate under article 77 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC) that the referee overlooked a serious infringement of the rules. Can a single bite really be considered a serious infringement as defined by article 47 FDC? We doubt it and this is why. At World Cups, football players get broken into pieces by over-aggressive tackles and risk potentially damaging concussions. In light of this a micro-bite leaving a 10–min trace on a players’ shoulder should not be considered a serious infringement. Undoubtedly this is a ridiculous and childish behaviour, highlighting the psychological instability of the player, but it is not a serious infringement - a violent conduct susceptible to endanger Chielini’s physical integrity. Therefore, we do not think that the FIFA Disciplinary Committee was competent to deal with the matter. Moreover, if against any legal “bon sens” the Committee were deemed competent, we think the following attenuating circumstances should be duly taken into account.

Preventive Self-Defence

Chiellini’s reputation as a tough (and dangerous) defender is not to be made. Hence, Suarez’s biting can be considered as self-defence. Even though no immediate threat could be identified, the biting might be a necessary preventive measure to avoid any future wrongdoing from Chiellini’s side. This seems to be common practice in international law since the US preventively attacked Irak in 2003, we do not see any compelling reason why such a rationale could not be transposed to the case at hand. Thus, we ask the Appeal Committee to recognize that Suarez acted in preventive self-defence and, hence, to annul (or reduce) the sanctions adopted by the Disciplinary Committee.

The Crocodile Syndrome

Moreover, Suarez’s biting is to be excused by the Appeal Committee because of his unstable mental status. Suarez has a well-known track record of biting opponents and competitors dating back to its prime football infancy. He developed a very rare symptom know as the crocodile syndrome, leading him to instinctively react to stressful and frustrating situations by biting. World-renowned medical expert Dr. Zahn has confirmed Suarez’s atypical psychological condition. We therefore demand that Suarez’s biting be considered as an immediate consequence of a psychological disease and conclude that it should not lead to any sanction. Instead, we suggest equipping Suarez with a playing muzzle as a preventive measure to avoid any recurrence of biting incidents.

Concluding Plea

Luis Suarez is the victim of a repressive climate. The global populace calls for a sacrifice, but this would lead to punishing him for an anodyne, rather childish behaviour, out of his control and used primarily as a defensive reflex against the recurring violence of defenders. In fact, Suarez suffers greatly from his inability to deal with stressful and violent encounters and shouldn’t be paying for what is to be qualified as a psychological impairment. Furthermore, we believe the problem could be solved by less radical measures than a ban, for example we have suggested that Suarez could wear a muzzle in future games. We trust that the Appeal Committee will recognize the specificity of Suarez’s situation and show the required clemency. 

[1] First to the FIFA Appeal Committee under the procedure laid down in Articles 118-127

[2] In the unlikely (after our plea) case of a dismissal of his appeal by the Appeal Committee, Suarez can go to the CAS pursuant to article 64 3. FIFA Statutes

Editor's Note: Frans M. de Weger is legal counsel for the Federation of Dutch Professional Football Clubs (FBO) and CAS arbitrator. De Weger is author of the book “The Jurisprudence of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber”, 2^nd edition, published by T.M.C. Asser Press in 2016. Frank John Vrolijk specialises in Sports, Labour and Company Law and is a former legal trainee of FBO and DRC Database.

In this first blog, we will try to answer some questions raised in relation to the Article 12bis procedure on overdue payables based on the jurisprudence of the DRC and the PSC during the last two years: from 1 April 2015 until 1 April 2017. [1] The awards of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (hereinafter: “the CAS”) in relation to Article 12bis that are published on CAS’s website will also be brought to the reader’s attention. In the second blog, we will focus specifically on the sanctions applied by FIFA under Article 12bis. In addition, explanatory guidelines will be offered covering the sanctions imposed during the period surveyed. A more extensive version of both blogs is pending for publication with the International Sports Law Journal (ISLJ). If necessary, and for a more detailed and extensive analysis at certain points, we will make reference to this more extensive article in the ISLJ.

In 2015, FIFA announced a very significant addition to the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: “the RSTP”): the inclusion of a new provision on overdue payables by defaulting clubs towards players and other clubs. On 1 April 2015, the 2015 edition of the RSTP gave birth to a fast-track procedure to deal with overdue payables enshrined in Article 12bis (hereinafter: “the 12bis procedure”). In its Circular letter no. 1468, FIFA also strongly urged all of its member associations to make sure that their affiliated clubs were informed of this new provision immediately.

From Article 12bis, which is also laid down in the 2016 edition of the RSTP, it follows that clubs are required to comply with their financial obligations towards players and other clubs as per the terms stipulated in the contracts signed with their professional players and in the transfer agreements signed with other clubs. In accordance with Article 12bis FIFA is entitled to sanction clubs that have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis.

It was a real thorn in the side of FIFA that too many clubs, on a worldwide level, did not comply with their financial contractual obligations without legitimate reasons.[2] With the introduction of this provision, it was not only FIFA’s aim to continue its process to further speed up its proceedings, but also to establish a stronger system regarding overdue payables towards players and clubs. FIFA stressed that it wanted to further improve efficiency and provide clear regulatory steps to deal with overdue payables from clubs to players and from clubs to other clubs.

As from 1 April 2015, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: “the DRC”) and the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter: “the PSC”) are FIFA’s competent authorities to deal with claims on overdue payables in relation to Article 12bis. Both FIFA committees were given a wide scope of discretion to impose sanctions on defaulting clubs, such as fines and transfer bans. In fact, the possibility to impose sanctions is critical to support a stronger and more efficient dispute resolution system regarding overdue payables, as we will see in the second blog.

The introduction of FIFA’s 12bis procedure also gave rise to many (legal) questions. For example, are only clubs and players entitled to lodge a claim before respectively the PSC and the DRC? Or are other parties, such as coaches and national associations, also entitled to raise their claims under 12bis? Do claims for training compensation and solidarity contribution fall under 12bis? Can the 12bis procedures be considered as a real fast-track procedure? Under what circumstances can an offence be considered a repeated offence? And also, since the imposition of sanctions is key to the efficacy of the 12bis procedure, under what conditions will these sanctions be imposed? These are only a small sample of the questions that arose after the introduction of the 12bis procedure. In this first blog, we will try to answer the most important questions raised based on the jurisprudence of the DRC, PSC and CAS.

General preliminary observations

As a starting point, it must be noted that exactly 137 decisions by the DRC and the PSC regarding Article 12bis have been published by FIFA on its website between 1 April 2015 and 1 April 2017.[3] Of these 137 decisions, 99 decisions have been dealt with by the DRC, including 58 decisions issued by the DRC Single Judge. Additionally, 32 decisions were passed by a Chamber of three judges, whereas 24 of these decisions were passed by circulars and eight were passed by a decision of a sitting Chamber in Zürich, Switzerland. Only nine FIFA decisions were passed by a Chamber of five judges.   

From the 38 decisions of the PSC, 37 were issued by its Single Judge and only one[4] was issued by a Chamber of three judges via a circular. It can be noticed that in most “renouncement of right cases” (in which defaulting clubs have not replied to the claim of the claimant party), a Single Judge has dealt with the case.

Analysing the decisions, it is striking that all claimants in the 137 decisions won their cases. In other words, in none of the decisions of the DRC and the PSC it was found that a “prima facie contractual basis” existed for the respondent party, which would justify non-compliance with the original contract. A sanction was imposed in all decisions.

It can further be observed that in the great majority of the decisions, the respondent party did not reply to the claim. As we will see, the absence of a reply will generally result in more severe 12bis sanctions for the defaulting club.

The jurisprudence of FIFA also illustrates that the 12bis procedure are a step towards swifter proceedings. In the last years we have already noted a positive development with regard to the length of ‘regular’ proceedings before FIFA (not including the 12bis procedures). With regard to the 12bis procedure, FIFA stressed that it has shortened the timeframe for decisions taken on overdue payables, with decisions now being taken within eight weeks and claimants being notified of a decision within nine weeks of lodging their complete claim. After analysing the 12bis decisions of the DRC and the PSC, it is clear that FIFA actually lived up to these expectations. The average duration of a 12bis procedure is two months. It is only exceptionally that a 12bis decision lasted longer (four or ultimately five months) or even took less time (one or one and a half months).[5] As illustrated in Figure 1, approximately 67% of the PSC and the DRC procedures were concluded within eight weeks. Approximately 80% of both FIFA decisions were dealt with within 10 weeks.

Figure 1

The scope of Article 12bis

The two years of jurisprudence show that the personal scope of Article 12bis must be interpreted strictly. As follows from the text of Article 12bis(3), only players and clubs are entitled to lodge a claim before FIFA. Put another way, coaches, national associations and intermediaries do not have standing to sue in the 12bis procedure. This textual interpretation of the provision is confirmed by the jurisprudence of the DRC and the PSC. In fact, none of the reviewed decisions of the DRC or the PSC involved a party who was not a club or a player.

Additionally, it can be concluded that claims for training compensation or related to solidarity mechanism are also excluded from the scope of Article 12bis, as this opportunity is not provided in the provision. Moreover, the current jurisprudence does not leave room for any other interpretation. With regard to training compensation and solidarity mechanism, this means that FIFA gives to “overdue payables” a different meaning than the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations, since outstanding amounts for training compensation and solidarity mechanism are considered by UEFA as overdue payables. The same is true for outstanding payments due by clubs to other (than player) club employees and debts by clubs to social/tax authorities; such outstanding amounts will not be considered by FIFA as ‘overdue’ under Article 12bis.

Generally, the DRC deals mainly with contracts signed by clubs with professional players. These include employment contracts but it is to be expected that separate agreements could also fall under the scope of Article 12bis as long as specific elements of that separate agreement suggest that it was in fact meant to be part of the actual employment relationship, as the DRC decided in many other cases (not being 12bis procedures). This is for example the DRC’s position with regard to image right contracts.^[6] Based on the jurisprudence reviewed, it follows that termination agreements fall under the scope of Article 12bis.[7] The PSC will only deal with transfer agreements, including both transfers on a definite[8] as well as on a temporary basis[9]. It is to be expected that agreements between clubs that do not concern the status of players, their eligibility to participate in organised football, and their transfer between clubs belonging to different associations, will most likely not fall under Article 12bis.[10]

Finally, it also follows from Article 12bis(3) that the creditor (player or club) must have put the debtor club in default in writing, granting a deadline of at least 10 days to comply with its financial obligations. Regarding this 10-days deadline, FIFA follows a strict interpretation, as we will see in the following paragraph.

The existence of an ‘overdue payable’ 

As follows from the wording of Article 12bis and the corresponding jurisprudence, two prerequisites must be met to establish that an overdue payable exists under Article 12bis. First, the club must have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a “prima facie contractual basis”. Second, the creditor (which is the player or club) must have put the debtor club in default in writing, granting a deadline of at least 10 days to comply with its financial obligations. In all the published decisions the FIFA committees verified that a 10-days deadline had been granted. We can therefore assume that this 10-days deadline is a prerequisite for the DRC and the PSC to proceed with the claim. Although Article 12bis is not entirely clear as regards the start of the “10-days deadline”, the jurisprudence shows that it runs as soon as the 30 days have elapsed.[11]

Disputes can arise with regard to the fulfilment of the “10-days deadline”. For example, in the CAS award of 9 May 2016, the player had filed a statement of claim before the DRC on 25 March 2015 and then sent a letter to the club on 30 March 2015 (i.e. five days after filing a claim at the DRC) putting the club in default for the overdue payment. The club however argued that this was a violation of Article 12bis(3) of the RSTP, edition 2015, as it did not make any legal sense whatsoever to address a default notice to a party after lodging a claim at FIFA. The CAS however stated that it was clear that the player had already given the club ample opportunity (the player stated that it had already provided three separate notices of default) to fulfil its obligations in conformity with Article 12bis.[12] The CAS therefore found it curious that the FIFA administration still requested the player to issue yet another default notice in such a situation when it was clear that the player had already given the club many opportunities to fulfil its obligations. This part of the award is interesting. On the one hand it shows that (the) FIFA (administration) obliges creditors to send a “10-days deadline” default letter under all circumstances, while on the other hand it is to be expected that the CAS might show more flexibility. Interestingly, in a case before the PSC, the claimant club put the respondent club in default of payment, starting the 10-days deadline on the exact same date of the submission. This practice was accepted by the PSC.[13] In other words, in order to gain time, claimants might be able to lodge a claim in front of FIFA before the “10-days deadline” of Article 12bis has passed.  

To establish whether “overdue payables” exist, it is decisive that the “overdue payables” existed after 1 April 2015 (the date on which Article 12bis came into force). This is also confirmed by the CAS. In its CAS award of 17 June 2016, the Italian club Pescara referred to the fact that the agreement between Pescara and the Belgian club Standard Liège was entered into on 10 July 2012, while Article 12bis did not take effect until 1 April 2015. Pescara stated that it had no means to know that Article 12bis would be enacted nearly three years later. The Sole Arbitrator however found it decisive and stressed that the claim made by Standard Liège was made after 1 April 2015 and that Standard Liège referred clearly to the overdue payables from Pescara. At the end, all that matters, according to the CAS, was the existence of overdue payables at the assessment date and that the assessment date was after 1 April 2015.[14]

For the sake of clarity, the fact that the DRC and the PSC have decided in 12bis procedures that a defaulting club must pay to the claimant overdue payables does not touch upon the question whether the contract has been terminated with just cause. To put it bluntly, a decision in a 12bis procedure does not justify a unilateral termination based on Article 14 of the RSTP; no legal connection exists in this regard. The jurisprudence of the DRC in relation to its ‘regular’ proceedings (not being 12bis procedures) generally shows that a valid ground for unilateral termination exists only in case there is outstanding remuneration for a period of three (or sometimes two) months.[15] This means the existence of an overdue payable under Article 12bis does not automatically give the claimant the legal right to unilaterally terminate the contract with the defaulting club. It should also be noted in this regard that it follows from Article 12bis(9) that the terms of Article 12bis are without prejudice to the application of further measures derived from Article 17 RSTP in case of a unilateral termination of the contractual relationship.

In the second blog we will focus specifically on the sanctions available to FIFA under Article 12bis and will provide explanatory guidelines covering the sanctions imposed during the period surveyed.

[1] This contribution discusses the jurisprudence of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) and the Players’ Status Committee (PSC) as published on FIFA’s website in the period between 1 April 2015 and 1 April 2017. Decisions published after the date of 1 April 2017 (even if issued before this date) will fall outside the scope of this contribution. The awards of the CAS in  relation to Article 12bis will also be discussed in this contribution. However, only the awards as published on the website of CAS before 1 April 2017 will be discussed in this contribution. As far as we know, several cases regarding art. 12bis are currently also pending before CAS.

[2] As was also introduced in FIFA Circular no. 1468, dated 23 January 2015, the new Art. 12bis is added to the list of provisions that are binding at national level and must be included in the association’s regulations (cf. Art. 1(3)(a) of the RSTP.

[3] Dispute Resolution Chamber: http://www.fifa.com/governance/disciplinary/dispute-resolution-system.html. Accessed 1 April 2017. Players’ Status Committee: http://www.fifa.com/governance/disciplinary/dispute-resolution-system.html. Accessed 1 April 2017.

[4] PSC 20 June 2016, no. op0616676.

[5] See for the shorter procedures: inter alia DRC 18 May 2016, no. op0516646, DRC 29 February 2016, no. op0216229, DRC 15 July 2016, no. op0916308 and DRC 30 November 2015, no. 11151578. See for the longer procedures: inter alia DRC 3 June 2016, no. op0616046, DRC 7 April 2016, no. op04161633, DRC 15 October 2015, no. op1015914 and DRC 1 October 2015, no. 1015648.

[6] DRC 13 December 2013, no. 12131045 and DRC 17 January 2014, no. 114396. See also DRC 30 August 2013, no. 08133402, DRC 10 February 2015, no. 02151030 and DRC 28 March 2014, no. 03141211. See also CAS 2014/A/3579 Anorthosis Famagusta FC v. Emanuel Perrone, award of 11 May 2015.

[7] See inter alia DRC 26 November 2015, no. op11151356.

[8] See inter alia PSC 13 September 2016, no. op09161090.

[9] See inter alia PSC 11 June 2015, no. op0615618 and PSC 20 February 2017, no. op02172015.

[10] Art. 1(1) RSTP, edition 2016.

[11] Moreover, parties should be aware that the 30 days deadline will start to run only after the so-called “grace periods” has passed, which also explicitly follows from the applicable jurisprudence of FIFA. A grace period can be considered as the period immediately after the deadline for an obligation during which the amount due, or other action that would have been taken as a result of failing to meet the deadline, is waived provided that the obligation is satisfied during the grace period. See DRC 14 November 2016, no. 11161545-E. Also in “regular” DRC cases so-called “grace periods” are accepted. See inter alia DRC 6 November 2014, no. 11141064.

[12] See CAS 2015/A/4153 Al-Gharafa SC v. Nicolas Fedor & FIFA, award of 9 May 2016. From this award it follows that FIFA applied the incorrect version of the RSTP in its decision of 22 June 2015 as a result of which Art. 12bis was not applicable.

[13] PSC 30 November 2015, no. 10151052.

[14] Also in its award of 17 June 2016, another Sole Arbitrator stressed that as Art. 12bis has been implemented within the 2015 edition of the RSTP, FIFA has the power to impose a sanction listed in Art. 12bis(4) RSTP in that specific case. See CAS 2015/A/4310 Al Hilal Saudi Club v. Abdou Kader Mangane, award of 17 June 2016.

[15] See inter alia DRC 7 September 2011, no. 9111901 (two months) and DRC 11 May 2011, no. 129795 (three months). See also DRC 17 December 2015, no. 12151368. Please note that CAS will hold on to a period of three months in order to establish that a just cause exists; See inter alia CAS 2015/A/4158 Qingdao Zhongneng Football Club v. Blaz Sliskovic, award of 28 April 2016.