Friday, 29.03.2019


Further to the news that FIFPro filed a complaint to the responsible FIFA bodies, and which referred to the alleged "violating principles of good governance and disrupting of the FA's bodies integrity", FA of Serbia is obliged to inform the public about a few very important facts:

- FA of Serbia Court of Arbitration is an independent body composed of arbitrators proposed by the Super League clubs, Professional Footballers Syndicate and the football association. The Court settles disputes arisen between a player and a club, a coach and a club and between clubs.

- In the last two years, after reform of the Court, level of his efficiency has been significantly higher, number of disputes has been significantly reduced and all the decisions have been made in accordance with positive legal regulations of the Republic of Serbia and the FA of Serbia. Representatives of both the clubs and the Syndicate have publicly praised the Court on more than one occasion.

- In almost 98% of the cases the disputes have been settled in favour of the players and due to outstanding obligations of the clubs. Not one interested party in processes stated any kind of remark regarding the Court work.

- The arbitrator who passed the decision in the mentioned case was chosen for the list of arbitrators upon a suggestion of the Professional Footballers Syndicate "Nezavisnost", a member of FIFPro, and that is the only case when the principle of impartiality and legal order of the Republic of Serbia were roughly violated.

- In the present case the arbitrator overlooked the evidence submitted by the club and passed the decision that was absolutely contrary to the factual stated and positive legal regulations of the Republic of Serbia and the FA of Serbia.

- Court of Arbitration accessed the files, legally bound to in a case of reasonable doubt that the passed decision led to violation the public policy and ignoring of imperative regulations, and undoubtedly concluded that the ruling arbitrator had acted contrary to the key evidence from the case files - confirmation from Pension and Disability Insurance Fund, that undeniably confirmed that the player had not cancelled the obligatory social insurance.

 - Therefore, the arbitrator found that the only violation of the contractual obligations of the club was cancelling the obligatory social insurance, and which simply was not true, and at the same time unfeasible to oblige the club to register the player for obligatory social insurance in a situation when the same player's insurance had not been cancelled. Such a decision was not a consequence of a free judicial conviction, but abuse of rights which could not be tolerated.

 - The arbitrator who roughly violated the regulations and endangered the legal order of the Republic of Serbia was dismissed within foreseen procedure in exactly the same manner he had been chosen for that duty. Therefore, it is a notorious untruth that he was replaced by another arbitrator.

- It is unclear why the truth has been distorted in this case, considering the Court of Arbitration is not the body that violated imperative regulations, but the arbitrator who passed the decision contrary to the law and public policy. The Court of Arbitration also reacted according to the laws of the Republic of Serbia.

- Acting in such manner, FIFPro is trying to draw the attention from the factual state that undoubtedly point out that the arbitrator chosen by the Syndicate violated his legal authority, ignored statements from the public document and passed the decision contrary to the imperative regulations and public policy of the Republic of Serbia. These are the only reasons why he had been dismissed. With series of untruths and unverified information, the statement of Theo van Seggelen is scandalous at the very least, and frivolous for a person with such a responsible function.

- All members of the FA of Serbia must have absolute trust in work and actions of the Court of Arbitration, which competence is obligatory, according to FIFA and UEFA regulations. If there is a doubt in impartial and independent work of a Court of Arbitration, then it does not justify its existence and does not serve the purpose.

- Acting in such a way, and above all in accordance with the law, Court of Arbitration has protected its authority and credibility earned in previous years.

- Considering FIFPro already made this case public, we invite all journalists, in agreement and in presence of the president of the Court of Arbitration, to obtain clarifications regarding submitted evidence that are within the case files and establish for themselves respecting the law and how the decisions had been passed.

- Convinced that in this case it is only about protecting principles of impartiality and the right for a fair trial, we are eager to submit all relevant evidence and facts regarding the mentioned case, not only to the public, but also to FIFA.