Kolkata: Following Meeting held on 3rd August, 2017 at the AIFF Football House, New Delhi, the “Special Committee” consisting of 7 members (being the Chairman of the ‘Disciplinary Committee’, Chairmen and Dy. Chairmen of the ‘Players’ Status Committee” & ‘Legal Advisory Committee’ and 2 senior members from the ‘Disciplinary Committee’ & the ‘Players Status Committee’) has delivered through its Chairman Mr. Ushanath Banerjee detailed , unanimous reasoned Decision of the Special Committee, primarily, for establishing the process vis a vis the jurisdiction of AIFF and its affiliated State Associations related to settlement of “dispute” between and amongst the Club, Player, Association or otherwise arising out of the ‘Status’ of a Player or otherwise, and which Committee of the AIFF is empowered to deal with the same and whether while undecided as to the validity and enforceability of any enforceable ‘Contract’ between a Club and a player, the affiliated State Association could direct the Player to register for the affiliated Club merely based on possession of the “Token” by the Club as a ‘legal right’, in the absence of prior determination as to existence of a “Contract”.
The Committee by its unanimous reasoned decision held that:
- When presence of a ‘Contract’ is under challenge, without first ascertaining through due legal process and as per the provisions of the AIFF Regulations and FIFA guidelines, existence of a ‘valid, binding and enforceable’ Contract between the Club and a Player or not, no decision otherwise affecting any of the party could either be obtained or if at all made would be unsustainable and wrongful. Any internal regulatory or procedural norm set down by anyone contrary thereto must be regarded as invalid and unreasonable, in the absence of a ‘valid and binding’ Contract is in place and such decision may be equated with of being unfair and unjust.
- Mere possession of a ‘Token’ of the player by a Club in the absence of a valid and enforceable “Contract”, is neither a ‘legal right’, nor contractual or even a common law right to press for any enforcement.
- In the absence of due ascertainment of existence of a ‘Written binding Contract”(as envisaged under FIFA requirements and compliances of the mandatory provisions of Articles 4 & 5 of the “AIFF Regulations for the Status and Transfers of Players”), the decision of the IFA dated 28th July, 2017 as well as the concerned purported regulatory Norm of the IFA of “Token” being treated as “legal right” is untenable and wrongful and, as such, the same based on mere possession of ‘Token’ by the Club and accepting the same as ‘legal right’ over the Player, cannot be sustained and/or enforced and Abinash Ruidas is not obligated to abide by the same.
- As Abinash Ruidas sought settlement of dispute by the AIFF and held out to be a ‘free player’ for the firth coming Season, with right to sign for any other Club, even outside the territorial jurisdiction of the State Association, territorial bounds of a State Association would be misplaced, merely on the plea that the Player for the earlier Seasons ‘registered’ with the said State Association and the Club is an affiliated Member. A free player is at absolute freedom to earn his livelihood with better prospects by registering with another State Association. Obviously, if it is determined that there exists a valid and enforceable Contract with the Club, consideration would have to considered in different process as per the set down regulatory modalities of the AIFF, rule of law and judicial decisions. But so long such adjudication is not made and/or remains incomplete, the Player must be regarded as a “free Player;
- Existence of a valid and binding “Contract” between a Club and the Player must be in compliances of the applicable regulatory provisions, inclusive of Articles 4 and 5 of the “AIFF Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players” read with the Guidelines set down by FIFA. Any breach of Article 5 of the “AIFF Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players” would cause the Contract ‘invalid’. These mandatory provisions cannot be avoided and must be complied with to assert an ‘enforceable valid Contract between a Club and a Player.
- Harmonious reading of the “Constitutional” and “Regulatory provisions” of the AIFF in conjunctions with each others explicitly discloses that the AIFF is empowered to settle and adjudicate any “dispute” inter se between and amongst a Player, Club or Affiliated Member related to ‘status’ or otherwise, in supersession of any Affiliated Member;
- Powers of an affiliated State Association are limited by territorial considerations and subjective of Constitutional, Regulatory mandates, Directions and Decisions of the National Federation. Only when any dispute relates to “Local” inter se and/or local Transfer and/or dispute between two Clubs encompassed within its territory and/or arising out of local Tournaments held by or under its aegis, the State Association is competent to take cognizance of any such dispute within the bounded limits of its Regulations, provided however, if any one invokes interference and settlement under AIFF Constitution, such settlement and adjudication by AIFF would supersede the State Association’s power and authority;
- In terms of the ‘AIFF Constitution’ and ‘AIFF Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players’ the “Players Status Committee” of the AIFF, a Judicial Body of the AIFF is entrusted with exclusive powers to deal with ‘dispute’ as to the status of the Player and his ‘Contractual validity’. Only when and if there be final decision and determination identifying as to the culpability, the same could then be adjudicated by the ‘Disciplinary Committee’ of the AIFF in accord with the Disciplinary Code;
- In conclusion, it is decided that:
a) The decision of the IFA dated 28th July, 2017 cannot be sustained and/or enforced;
b)AIFF is the authority to adjudicate the disputed subject issue in its entirety including the ‘’Status” of the Player and/or whether there exists any valid and binding written Contract, and whether there has been mandatory compliance of Articles 4.3 and 5 of the AIFF Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players;
c)As per the AIFF Constitution and AIFF Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players, the “Players Status Committee” of the AIFF is entrusted with exclusive powers to deal with and settle the ‘dispute’ as to the status of the Player and his Contractual validity;
d)Any other or further decision of the IFA relating to or arising out of the subject issue of ‘Abinash Ruidas’, cannot be sustained/enforced.
The All India Football Federation (AIFF) has officially mailed the Indian Football Association (IFA) where the latter has been informed that regarding the contract dispute surrounding Abinas Ruidas would be decided by the AIFF as voted by the seven-membered committee. A meeting supposedly to be held on August 17 could take place by the AIFF’s Status Committee who would decide where Abinas would play in this season.
Though the AIFF would be taking the decision in this matter, the IFA would continue its procedure as it has been doing before. On Wednesday the handwriting expert would examine the signature of the player, i.e. Abinas Ruidas.
Kolkata giants East Bengal has officially announced that the controversy surrounding Abinas has become a daily issue nowadays for the club. Whatever needs to be said on the player would be spoken by the IFA.
Abinas has reportedly written a letter to East Bengal yesterday demanding a release so as to concentrate on his football career. When the Red and Gold brigade was enquired as to whether the release order has been given to the player, the club officials refused to comment on the matter and said that they have sent the requisite details to the IFA, whatever needs to be said would be told by the IFA.