FIFA run the game, if they suspend someone for refusing a call up, it would be a last resort but perfectly within the rules , and I would suggest aimed at clubs refusing to release players, as opposed to players who simply don't want to play. They would only act if Cameroon complained, it's their call ultimately.
I've no doubt you're correct, but it seems weird to me that someone can be forced to play for their national team. It's like conscription. I've always assumed it was voluntary, and as most people consider it an honour few cases like this arose. Shows what I know about internationals.
I guess we'll find out soon enough.. not what we need right now, Matip in the team and our defence looks transformed!
Untested in court of law which would simply tell fifa it contravenes just about every law going As i said its utterly counter productivevlong term to do it as any lad in france would be thinking **** that im not pkaying for my parents country.. look what they do.
I phrased it badly. I meant I'm surprised that they can be punished at club level for not wanting to play in their national team. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, as football authorities seem to be a law unto themselves, but I wonder how this stuff would stand up in an employment tribunal if it were any other occupation.
Nope. As sports organisations rules fall outside of jurisdiction of the courts. All members of FIFA sign up for the rules, and by doing so accept the T&C's of the organisation. Otherwise you could try and argue any form of suspension contravenes employment law.
I dont think it matters what occupation it is if someone took an injunction on any suspension and brought them to court this law would be found to break employment law
So the club, or the player, would have to take FIFA to court? We could do without that, though I do think the insulated world of football should be brought into line with the standards and practices of the wider world. Too often the FA, FIFA, whatever, just seem to make up the rules to suit themselves.
Its called bosman. Its been done. We could all do without it yes so whichever country forces it would imo be warned off by fifa. The rule in question is really just a deterrant against the fergusons and giggs of this world. In this case matip has given his country the answer 3 times so if theyve not prepared and think a pissed off pkayer is worth more than their current cbs they must be ****.
They can't operate outside the basic rules of human rights. Surely the Bosman Ruling was a case of football's self-made laws being brought into line with a more general legal framework?
You're missing the point. Sports club rules are agreed by all who choose to form part of the club & discip and suspension rules form part of that, there is no legal challenge to sports club rules. All of those Nations who participate do so as part of FIFA's huge sports club. The Bosman ruling was about restriction of trade outside of a contracted period of employment, and NOT specifically relating to the rules of FIFA's sports club. This issue is about the rules of the sports club.
So a player taking a case stating that fifa interfered in his contracted employment could not stand... i fully accept what you said on bosman. My point is a player has taken on the powers that be before and won so it can be done not that bisman covers the current position. It is not a disciplinary matter if a player says no i dont want to play for a country that ive not contractual obligation to play for and to force them to under threat of suspension would affect his contracted employment thus a case could be taken in several ways. Which of course is last thing fifa would want.
Not in this context - no. Let me give you an analogy. I decide to form a Tiddly Winks League, and draw up a set of rules. You and Saint read the rules and decide to join. Amongst the rules in section 17, clause 4, is a rule that says if you turn up to any tiddly winks league match wearing a Liverpool shirt, you will receive a 6 month ban and a £100 fine. As ludicrous as the rule maybe, you've agreed to it, as you signed the T&C's of my sports club. For what it's worth in this case I doubt Cameroon will ask for a ban, as it appears the player has no interest in playing for them, as opposed to him being pressured to **** them off. The rule is there to stop abuse of players rights, as well as the rights of the national FA's. Otherwise, clubs could add clauses to players contracts restricting their availability for International duty, or apply massive pressure to the player behind closed doors to refuse to play. Therefore the rule stops both happening as it ensures that the player would be unavailable domestically in any case.
