Protection of minors – the Chelsea case
In February 2019 FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee sanctioned Chelsea FC and The FA for breaching provisions concerning protection of minors, i.e., Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) art. 19 and 19bis. Chelsea was found to have breached RSTP art. 19 in the case of 29 minor players and to have committed several other infringements relating to registration requirements for players. 8 May 2019, the decision was upheld by the FIFA Appeal Committee, banning Chelsea from registering new players at both national and international level for the next two complete and consecutive registration periods. Chelsea have also been fined £460,000, while the FA has been fined £390,000. 7 June 2019 The Court of Arbitration for Sport confirmed that it has received an appeal filed by Chelsea. In recent years, FIFA has shown its determination to ensure that the regulations on protection of minors are met, by sanctioning clubs that breach the regulations. 16 May 2019, a week after the FIFA Appeal Committee upheld the decision against Chelsea, RSC Anderlecht was fined CHF 200,000 by FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for breaching the protection of minors regulations.
RSTP art. 19 states that, as a starting point, international transfers of players are only permitted if the player is over the age of 18. If a transfer is to be according to the provisions, it would have to fulfil at least one of the exemptions stated in the regulations:
1) The player’s parents move to the country in which the new club is located for reasons not linked to football.
2) The player is at least 16 years old, and the transfer takes place within the territory of the European Union (EU) or European Economic Area (EEA). The exemption must be seen in connection with the agreement reached between the EU and FIFA/UEFA in 2001, regarding the principle of free movement of employees within the EU/EEA. For such transfers, there are certain obligations the new club must fulfil. Firstly, the new club must provide the player with high standard football education. Secondly the new club must provide the player with high standard academic or vocational education. Thirdly, the new club must ensure that the player is looked after in the best possible way. It is worth noting that English clubs will be prevented from signing players from foreign clubs under the age of 18, once Brexit has been formalised.
3) The player transfers to a club maximum 100 km from the player’s domicile. In such a transfer, the player must continue to live at home.
In addition to the three exemptions, RSTP art. 19.3 provides a ‘5-year rule’ which, allows the first registration of a foreign minor with a club in a country where the player has continuously lived for at least five years immediately prior to the first registration.
RSTP art. 19.4 provides that any transfer of minors is subject to approval of the sub-committee, appointed by the FIFA Players’ Status Committee. National associations are required to submit an application to the sub-committee before a registration of a minor in accordance with the regulations can take place. Violations of the article is subject to sanctions from the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
In the commentary edition of RSTP, it is emphasised that the intention of the strict provisions is to prevent abuse of minors, and to provide young players with a stable environment for training and education. A similar view is expressed by the European Commission in White paper on sport:
“The exploitation of young players is continuing. The most serious problem concerns children who are not selected for competitions and abandoned in a foreign country, often falling in this way in an irregular position which fosters their further exploitation. Although in most cases this phenomenon does not fall into the legal definition of trafficking in human beings, it is unacceptable given the fundamental values recognised by the EU and its Member States. It is also contrary to the values of sport. Protective measures for unaccompanied minors in Member State immigration laws need to be applied rigorously.”
Jurisprudence from FIFA Disciplinary Committee, Appeals Committee and Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) show that a strict approach has been applied, and that violations of the protection of minors provisions are sanctioned severely. As Chelsea has appealed the decision to CAS, it is interesting to examine how CAS has dealt with similar violations of the provisions.
The first time CAS considered a breach of the protection of minors provisions, was in the Acuña case (CAS 2005/A/955&956) in 2005, where CAS concluded that a mother’s move from Paraguay to Spain with her 16-year old son was in breach of the provisions, as the move was linked to football.
In 2008, CAS found that Danish Superliga club FC Midtjylland (CAS 2008/A/1485) had violated the protection of minors provisions, when signing six Nigerian players on amateur contracts, on student visas. Regarding the amateur status, CAS stated:
“The Panel accepts that to apply Art. 19 of the RSTP restrictively to professional players only could result in obviating protection of young amateur players from the risk of abuse and ill treatment which was clearly not within the anticipation of the scope of the regulation.”
In 2011, CAS dismissed an appeal by the player Elmir Muhic (CAS 2011/A/2354), who had moved from Bosnia Herzegovina to Germany to live with his aunt, and at the same time pursue a career as a football player. CAS adopted a strict interpretation of the term “parents”.
Breaches of the protection of minors provisions may be sanctioned by FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee in accordance with the FIFA Disciplinary Code. A decision from the Disciplinary Committee can normally be appealed to the FIFA Appeal Committee and to CAS.
In 2014, FC Barcelona (CAS 2014/A/3793) was sanctioned by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for breaching the protection of minors provisions. The decision was appealed to CAS, which found that FCB had breached several requirements in RSTP. Firstly, FCB had violated the prohibition on the international transfer of under-aged players regulated in Art. 19.1 RSTP in nine cases. FCB argued that the protection for minors provisions did not apply to transfers for players under the age of 12, as RSTP did not provide an obligation to issue ITCs (International Transfer Certificates) for transfers involving such young players. The CAS panel however, concluded that the protection of minors provisions did in fact regulate transfer of all players under the age of 18, even for transfers that did not provide ITCs. Secondly, FCB had violated the prohibition on the first registration of under-aged players regulated in Arts. 19.1, and 19.3 RSTP in one case. Thirdly, FCB had violated the provisions regarding TMS (Transfer Matching System) regulated in RSTP art 19.4 and annex 2 in six cases. Fourthly, in five cases, FCB had, by failing to receive ITCs from the players’ former associations, violated the procedural rules regulated in RSTP art. 19.4 and annexe 3. In addition, FCB was found to have reached provisions in RSTP art. 19bis, regarding the obligations to report under-aged players attending an academies, and provisions in RSTP art. 9.1 regarding the obligation of registering players with a new association once the former association has issued an ITC. As a consequence of the breaches, CAS banned FCB from register new players for two transfer windows, and issued a fine of 450 000 CHF.
In 2017, CAS issued Real Madrid (CAS 2016/A/4785) with a ban from register new players for one transfer window, and a fine of 240 000 CHF for several infringements of the protection for minors provisions. Also in 2017, Atletico Madrid (CAS 2016/A/4805) was sanctioned for breaching the protection of minors provisions. CAS confirmed the FIFA Disciplinary Committee decision and banned Atletico Madrid from registering new players for two transfer windows, and a fine of 550 000 CHF.
The cited cases from FIFA Disciplinary Committee and Appeals Committee as well as from the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) show that infringements of the protection of minors provisions normally will lead to a ban from register new players for one or two transfer windows, in addition to severe fines. The number of transfer windows and the size of the ban will to a large degree depend on the scale of the breaches, i.e. the number of minor players involved. In the Chelsea case, few details are known, other than that FIFA has concluded that the provisions were breached in 29 occasions.
