×
NewsDay

AMH is an independent media house free from political ties or outside influence. We have four newspapers: The Zimbabwe Independent, a business weekly published every Friday, The Standard, a weekly published every Sunday, and Southern and NewsDay, our daily newspapers. Each has an online edition.

Football and courts of law

Sport
WORLD football governing body Fifa has clearly stated being uncomfortable with players and administrators/officials taking football matters to court. National associations have been advised to take stern measures against such moves.

WORLD football governing body Fifa has clearly stated being uncomfortable with players and administrators/officials taking football matters to court. National associations have been advised to take stern measures against such moves. REPORT BY WELLINGTON TONI SPORTS EDITOR

Unfortunately for some, whether by design or ignorance — or perhaps a fight against Zifa’s failure to follow its own laid down disciplinary measures within stipulated periods — the courts seem to be the only avenue available.

On November 5, Fifa wrote to Zifa warning that individuals taking the Asiagate match-fixing matters to court would be dealt with harshly, as local appeals process should be exhausted first.

This was after former Warriors coach Sunday Chidzambwa, former Zifa chief executive Henrietta Rushwaya and Godfrey Japajapa had applied to the High Court to have their life bans nullified.

Marco Villiger, Fifa’s director of legal affairs and Marc Cavaliero, Fifa’s head of discipline and governance, said in an advisory note to Zifa that Article 64, paragraph 2 of the Zifa statutes, stipulates that “recourse to ordinary courts of law is prohibited unless specifically provided for in the Fifa regulation”.

“We refer in particular to the correspondence received from the legal representative of the official Sunday Marimo Chidzambwa . . . In particular, we took note that the official Sunday Marimo Chidzambwa together with three other individuals involved in the above mentioned matter — (in particular officials Henrietta Rushwaya and Godfrey Japajapa) — has apparently lodged an application before the High Court in Zimbabwe against a decision rendered by the Zifa Independent Disciplinary Ad-hoc Committee.

“In view of the above and considering that associations shall ensure that this stipulation is implemented at national level and if need be, impose sanctions on any party that fails to respect the obligations previously mentioned (article 64, paragraph 3 of the Fifa statutes), we respectfully ask you to keep us informed of any claim lodged with an ordinary court by players, and/or officials involved in the above mentioned matter that comes to your attention and in that event, of the appropriate action the Zimbabwe Football Association will take against the aforementioned officials in order to guarantee the respect of the Fifa statutes.”

Even if due processes are exhausted, any affected individual, once any sanction has been approved by Fifa, should opt for the independent Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas) and not the courts of law.

Fuz must seek extension

AS such, Football Union of Zimbabwe (Fuz) is better off asking Zifa for an extension, on behalf of players, to pay the fine since the appeals committee deadline has already expired. Fuz, according to a story we carried yesterday, is planning to take the players’ case to Cas.

It’s unwise, very much so, for Fuz to advise players that they can appeal direct to Cas when the due football processes have not been followed. Article 63,2 of the Fifa statutes is more than clear: “Recourse may only be made to Cas after all other internal channels have been exhausted.”

In any case, Fuz must also remember and remind players that Cas is not a Fifa body and will reject outright any appeal which does not recognise the jurisdiction of the associations that have made the decisions. An example of how Cas deals with such issues is the recent case of the Liberia Football Association (LFA) which sought to reverse a Caf decision on the election for the leadership of the continental body. While LFA definitely has a point against the rules, Cas noted in its November 30 judgment that the appeal process can only start once the minutes, which approved the new voting procedure, have been circulated. LFA jumped the gun and appealed to Cas before receiving the minutes.

Part of the judgment reads: “In the first case, which was filed against a decision taken by the Extraordinary General Assembly of Caf on 3 September 2012 concerning amendments to the statutes governing the election of the Caf president, the deputy president of the Appeals Division found that the deadline to appeal had not yet started to run as the formal notification of the decision, by way of the minutes of the meeting, has not yet been made to the LFA. Accordingly, the appeal to the Cas is premature and the procedure has been terminated. As indicated by the Caf itself, an appeal would be possible once the minutes have been officially notified to the Caf members.”

As such, players from Zimbabwe will receive a more favourabe hearing and sympathy from anyone if they follow the laid-down procedures. A three-man appeals committee, which is recognised by the Zifa statutes, has been put in place and the affected parties must deal with this animal first before going higher up to Fifa and Cas.

Admittedly, the appeal fee of $6 000 is “murderous” and the bans are certainly career threatening.