On May 22, FIFA's Disciplinary Committee made a decision requiring the Chinese Football Association (CFA) to pay US$1106,250 in liquidated damages and 6,000 Swiss francs in legal fees to the late French manager Bruno Bini, which stemmed from the International Sports Arbitration's decision on the labor dispute between the two parties. For a while, the news that "if the CFA fails to pay the money owed by June 13, the Chinese national team will face a global ban" spread rapidly. However, according to informed sources, although FIFA, the International Court of Arbitration for Sport, the Swiss Federal Court of the three levels of hearings have come to an end, the legal process is still not completely finished. The Chinese Football Association is actively communicating with FIFA, and with Chinese and foreign lawyers team side by side, and strive to safeguard their own rights and interests, the so-called "June 13 deadline" is just a rumor.
Back in April 2018, Bruno took the CFA to FIFA over an unsuccessful claim. A judge appointed by FIFA's Athlete Status Committee ruled that the CFA would have to pay $1,106,250. If the CFA does not implement the ruling, the case will be referred to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
However, CFA failed to enforce the award and appealed to the International Court of Arbitration for Sport (ICS).2021 On May 26, 2021, the ICS rejected the appeal and demanded the payment of CHF 6,000 in litigation costs. The CFA appealed to the Swiss Federal Court of Justice, requesting a ruling that the result of the International Court of Arbitration for Sport was invalid and claiming that FIFA and the International Court of Arbitration for Sport did not have the right to adjudicate on the case. However, on January 13 this year, the Swiss Federal Court also rejected the appeal. in March, Bruno, according to the results of the judgment, the CFA to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
The CFA has the right to appeal and has responded in writing to FIFA. The response states, inter alia, that the contract explicitly stipulates that disputes must be submitted to Chinese judicial bodies for resolution, and that the FIFA Player Status Committee and the International Court of Arbitration for Sport have not respected this clause.On May 25, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee ruled that the CFA's plea of jurisdiction was invalid, and stipulated that FIFA has jurisdiction over such legal disputes. It ruled for the CFA to pay a fine of 30,000 Swiss francs and required payment within 30 days. Media reports suggest that CFA will appeal the case to the European Court of Human Rights.
"June 13" is the last payment deadline set by FIFA, and if the CFA fails to pay, it must provide FIFA with a reasonable explanation. If the explanation is not reasonable, the CFA may face harsher penalties, including a global ban. However, it is certain that "June 13" is not the time limit for the Chinese national team to face a global ban. Currently, the CFA is still in active communication with FIFA, and the legal process of the case is not yet over.
CFA has hired a professional team including foreign lawyers to handle the case. The CFA has always maintained the attitude of actively responding to lawsuits and defending its rights and interests, while at the same time fully and clearly understanding and grasping the relevant rules and laws in China and abroad. Previously, both domestic clubs and the CFA have lost in handling disputes with foreign aiders and coaches due to a lack of understanding of the procedures or ambiguity about the details of the rules and laws, so the CFA has been extra cautious in handling the dispute with Bruno.
Some media outlets have commented that it is not yet clear what the specific grounds for CFA's appeal to the ECtHR are. The jurisdiction of the ECtHR is limited, and it is not easy for the CFA as an organization to argue that its human rights have been compromised. It is common knowledge in Europe that an employer who unilaterally terminates a contract early is required to pay the remaining amount of the contract, which is difficult to be challenged by the CFA before the ECtHR. It seems that the CFA is facing an extremely difficult challenge. In any event, this case and its litigation process provides a valuable lesson for the CFA and the domestic soccer world.
Wen/Beijing Youth Sports Xiao Blush
