On May 22, FIFA's Disciplinary Committee issued a ruling requiring the Chinese Football Association (CFA) to pay up to $1,106,250 in liquidated damages as well as 6,000 Swiss francs in legal fees to the late French-born head coach Bruno Bini, a ruling that has sparked widespread concern. Rumors claimed that if the CFA failed to make the payment by June 13, the Chinese national team would face serious consequences in the form of a global ban. However, it has been revealed that the legal process has not yet been fully concluded, despite the case having gone through three levels of hearings by FIFA, the International Court of Arbitration for Sport and the Swiss Federal Tribunal. At present, the Chinese Football Association is actively negotiating with FIFA, and joint Chinese and foreign lawyers team, trying to maximize the protection of their own rights and interests, the so-called "June 13" deadline is just a rumor.
In April 2018, Bruno took the CFA to FIFA over an unsuccessful claim, stemming from his 2017 dismissal by the CFA. A judge appointed by FIFA's Athlete Status Committee ruled that the CFA needed to pay Bruno $1,106,250. If the CFA does not comply, the case will be referred to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
The CFA did not implement this decision and instead appealed to the International Court of Arbitration for Sport (ICS), but on May 26, 2021, the ICS rejected the appeal and demanded the payment of 6,000 Swiss francs in court costs. The CFA appealed the case to the Swiss Federal Court of Justice, but on January 13 this year, the Swiss Federal Court of Justice similarly rejected the appeal.In March, Bruno again took the CFA to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee based on the ruling.
The Chinese Football Association (CFA) allegedly had the right to file a complaint and had submitted a written response to FIFA. The response emphasized that the association's contract with Bruno stipulated that disputes were to be referred to Chinese judicial bodies for resolution and that FIFA and the International Court of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS) had failed to respect that clause. FIFA's Disciplinary Committee ruled on May 25 that the CFA's defense of jurisdiction was invalid and stipulated that FIFA has jurisdiction over such legal disputes. The rulings of the various legal bodies have completed their legal path and the judgment is final. The CFA violated the relevant FIFA regulations by failing to pay the amount in question and was fined 30,000 Swiss francs with a requirement to pay within 30 days. Reports indicate that CFA will further appeal the case to the European Court of Human Rights.
"June 13" is the last payment deadline proposed by FIFA, and if CFA fails to pay, it will be required to provide FIFA with a reasonable explanation. If the explanation is not reasonable, the CFA may face further punishment, including the possibility of a global ban. However, "June 13" is not the final deadline for the Chinese national team to face global competition. The CFA is still in active communication with FIFA, and the legal process of the case has not yet been fully completed.
It is reported that CFA has hired a team of professional lawyers, including foreign lawyers, to handle the case. The CFA said that it will always maintain the attitude of actively responding to lawsuits and defending its rights and interests, and in the process of responding to lawsuits, it will have a comprehensive and clear understanding and mastery of the relevant rules and laws in China and abroad. Previously, both domestic soccer clubs and the CFA have encountered disadvantages in handling disputes with foreign aiders and coaches due to unclear details of the procedures or rules and laws, so the CFA has been very cautious in handling the dispute with Bruno.
One media commented: "It is not yet clear what the specific grounds of the CFA's appeal to the European Court of Human Rights are. The jurisdiction of the ECtHR is limited, and it is not easy for the CFA, as an organization, to prove that its human rights have been compromised. Moreover, it has long been common knowledge in Europe that employers are required to pay the remaining amount of the contract for unilateral early termination, which is hardly something that the CFA would challenge in the ECtHR." It seems that the CFA is facing a particularly tricky dilemma. In any event, this case and the CFA's process of responding to the lawsuit provide valuable lessons and inspiration for the association and the domestic soccer world to deal with similar issues and to safeguard their rights and interests in a reasonable and lawful manner.
Wen/Beijing Youth Sports Xiao Blush
