24. See www.fifa.com/governance/news/y=2018/m=9/news=football-stakeholders-endorse-landmark-reforms-of-the-transfer-system.html 19. See the decisions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo 06151763 of 11 June 2015 and 06171331 of 15 June 2017. The DRC is a quasi-arbitral tribunal8 composed of 26 members, 13 club representatives and 13 player representatives, as well as a president and a vice-president.9 The RCMP generally decides in the presence of five members (two representatives of each stakeholder plus the [vice-president]) and meets every four to six weeks, with approximately 25 to 30 decisions made per meeting. 8. Strictly speaking, the decisions of FIFA`s decision-making bodies are not arbitral awards. See Federal Supreme Court decision 4A_492/2016. As with any dispute resolution system, improvements could be made. It is therefore of utmost importance that FIFA continues its efforts to improve and modernise the legal framework within which the Democratic Republic of Congo operates in order to ensure that the Democratic Republic of Congo develops and fulfills its mission. In this article, we look at FIFA`s Democratic Republic of Congo, track its evolution and look at its competences. The Democratic Republic of Congo is undoubtedly one of the most ambitious and successful projects in FIFA`s history, having made thousands of decisions during its nearly 20-year history that have significantly shaped football`s transfer system.

It is important to note that from 1 June 2018, the Democratic Republic of Congo will have the power to impose sporting sanctions on players and clubs that do not respect their decisions. These sanctions consist of restrictions on participation in official matches for up to six months and, for official matches, and for official matches, bans on the registration of new players for up to three registration periods.27 THE CA is one of FIFA`s “judicial bodies”, along with the Disciplinary Committee and the Ethics Committee. It consists of a President, a Vice-President and 12 members. The Arbitration Committee shall take its decisions with at least three members, except in exceptional cases where the President may govern alone. Members are appointed by the Executive Committee for a period of 8 years and only the President must have the legal qualifications (Art. 81 of the FIFA2 Disciplinary Regulations “FDC”). The AC is responsible for all decisions of the Disciplinary Committee, with the exception of “minor” measures such as warnings, warnings, suspensions for less than three matches or up to two months, fines of up to CHF 15,000 against an association or club or up to CHF 7,500.- in other cases and sanctions resulting from non-compliance with FIFA or CAS/CAS decisions. as provided for in art. 64 FDC, which can be challenged directly with TAS/CAS. The competence of the CAS is defined in Article 58 of the FIFA Statutes, which stipulates that appeals against the final decisions of FIFA`s legal bodies and the decisions of confederations, member associations or leagues must be submitted to the CAS within 21 days of notification of the decision in question.

The Democratic Republic of Congo was formally established in September 2001 and its first official meeting was held in November 2002, during which only two decisions were made.6 Nearly two decades later, in 2018, the DRC (including its subcommittees and single judges) issued more than 750 decisions.7 Article 22(a) has been the subject of intense debate and criticism as it appears to be unclear as to within its reach. One of the main controversies is whether Article 22(a) is only applicable if the association of the former club refuses to issue the player`s ITC. The NDRC should also “respect the principle of equal representation of players and clubs”. An NDRC is considered to respect this principle only if, in accordance with its rules, representatives of both stakeholders are able to exercise equal influence over its composition.20 In particular, there should be an equal number of player and club representatives, and the president and vice-president must be elected by consensus. Proceedings before an NDRC should also respect the fundamental principles of due process, such as the right to be heard, to adversarial proceedings, to an independent and impartial tribunal and to equal treatment. [21] “if the member concerned has a direct interest in the outcome of the case; if it is affiliated with one of the parties; if he has the same nationality as the party concerned (association, club, official, player, etc.) or if he has already dealt with the case in other circumstances. ” – Art. 87 FDC 1. The author thanks Lisa Jones and Ben Cisneros of Morgan Sports Law for their valuable feedback and support.

14. Usually the player`s former club, although it may be the player himself or another club. The need for success is non-negotiable – for football clubs, players, coaches and fans. It has always been so, but with ever-increasing sums of money and in an increasingly competitive market, the desire to win is greater than ever, and the consequences of failure more serious. In this context, it is inevitable that there will be frequent conflicts between players and clubs. In accordance with Article 85 of the FDC, the Commission is independent and cannot receive instructions from any other FIFA body. The FDC imposes strict restrictions on participation in the decision-making process. Members of the Board of Arbitration must refuse to participate in a case if there are substantial grounds for doubting their impartiality.

For example: THE FIFA Appeals Committee generally receives less attention than the FIFA Dispute Settlement Chamber or the Players` Status Committee, as it only deals with disciplinary cases that hardly make the headlines. But recent cases such as Barcelona`s transfer ban or the Suarez case have put the institution in the spotlight. The training compensation and solidarity mechanism systems have hardly changed since their introduction in the 2001 edition of the PFPR.23 However, this will soon change, as fifa`s Football Stakeholders` Committee approved far-reaching reforms following a meeting in September 2018, including the creation of a “clearing-house” to manage payments related to training compensation and the solidarity, among others.24 There is a gap with regard to: on small fines. Due to their financial nature, they can appeal to the CAS/CAS regardless of their amount (Art. 67 fifa Statutes) and a complaint to the CAS is generally cheaper than a complaint to the Board (CHF 1,000 versus CHF 3,000.-).