BPL finds ally in rules to pounce on BDF XI
Mqondisi Dube | Friday January 17, 2014 16:13
BPL finds ally in rules to pounce on BDF XI
FIFA rules which bar taking football disputes to court were evidently sweet music for the Botswana Premier League (BPL), which pounced on the 'militant' BDF X1 with an undisguised wry 'gotcha' smile, observes Staff Writer, MQONDISI DUBE
O
n Tuesday night, local football slipped back into familiar territory after former Premier League leaders BDF XI were docked six points and fined P10, 000 for taking a football matter to court.
BDF XI pleaded guilty holding out for some leniency and but instead received a jolt to their title aspirations when six points were deducted. BDF XI, top of the be MOBILE Premier League pile with 41 points, now find themselves battling at number three.
BDF XI are aware of the cardinal sin they committed - dragging a football matter to court. The army side had won their case against BFA and the BPL in court, which left the authorities with egg on its face. During a press briefing shortly after BDF XI's victory in court, BPL chairperson Mike Molefe labeled the army side 'militant'.
There were unconfirmed reports that some board members were irked by BDF XI's decision, which nearly marred the friendly between South Africa's Kaiser Chiefs and Mooched Centre Chiefs such that they vowed to deal with the club.
When the verdict rolled out on Tuesday night, it was hardly surprising that the BPL had struck against a club viewed as 'militant'. To the BPL, it was a decisive blow.
In fact it could have been worse. BDF XI could have been suspended for 18 months. The moment BDF XI walked to court, they fell into the hands of the waiting enemy. The Premier League office had been astronomically empowered. The FIFA statutes, under article 68 are unequivocal and so is the Botswana Football Association (BFA) constitution and the Play Rules and Regulations. The Disciplinary Committee (DC), which presided over the case with attorney Tshiamo Rantao prosecuting, was simply lapping up the rules and there was no contest over the guilty verdict. But BDF XI sympathisers will readily point to the treatment before the offence and eventually, the penalty.
'BDF XI have been unfairly treated. Yes, they were wrong to take a football matter to court, but was there any avenue that was going to afford them a fair hearing? The problem was with the friendly match; that is where the issue is,' said a member of the Premier League board speaking on condition of anonymity.
Indeed BDF XI were left cornered after the majority of the board members appeared to favour the friendly match between the two Chiefs.
The football leaders will find it difficult to remove the notion that the punishment meted out was nothing but settling a score. Although the suggestion that members of the DC, some known supporters of certain Premier League teams, were biased has already been dismissed as mischievous.
'It is not about how their league game was postponed. The issue is about a crime that was committed.
As a prosecutor, I am not concerned about the treatment, but that rules were violated,' Rantao says. He says the court decision, which went BDF XI's way, does not preclude BFA or FIFA from ensuring adherence to rules and regulations.
FIFA has actually urged sterner measures against clubs or individuals who refer football disputes to courts of law. Under the FIFA statutes, article 68.2 states that: 'Recourse to ordinary courts of law is prohibited unless specifically provided for in the FIFA regulations.
Recourse to ordinary courts of law for all types of provisional measures is also prohibited.'
In 68.3 FIFA calls for tough measures: 'The Associations shall impose sanctions on any party that fails to respect this obligation and ensure that any appeal against such sanctions shall likewise be strictly submitted to arbitration, and not to ordinary courts of law.'
FIFA argues all disputes should be exhausted through internal processes before being referred to the Court of Sport Arbitration (CSA) in Switzerland, which critics argue is tedious. The BFA constitution says a club or individual who take football disputes to court should be suspended for a period not exceeding 18 months, forfeit goals or points among other sanctions.
It says members of the association shall not take any dispute, which relates to the game of football, to court. Article 17.2.8 of the constitution says: 'The association and members hereby renounce the right to take football disputes before any Courts of Law.'
The association's Play Rules and Regulations are also unequivocal, with section 12.4 stating that 'any affiliate of the BFA which refers a dispute concerning the game of football to the courts of law... liable to a fine of not more than P10, 000 and a docking of points.
Furthermore, the club may be liable to a suspension from the BFA for a period of not more than 12 months.'
Rantao argues that other teams have not been punished for taking football to court, as the cases were dissimilar to that of BDF XI.
Security Systems, who sought recourse before the court last year after the team was thrown out of the Premier League did not face sanction as it had ceased to be a member.
Cases involving Township Rollers, Notwane and BMC have all ended in courts recently but there are no structures to handle their disputes within the BPL and BFA and therefore they can seek arbitration in court. All the cases are ownership disputes.
However, critics will forever remain unconvinced that BDF XI was purely punished for taking a football dispute to court.
'The club has been unfairly treated and it is a pity that they suffer a double blow as they have lost points as well.
The DC could have fined the club without taking away points as they did not use a defaulter, but won all their games fairly,' said the board member who spoke to Mmegi Sport.
On Tuesday night, local football slipped back into familiar territory after former Premier League leaders BDF XI were docked six points and fined P10, 000 for taking a football matter to court. BDF XI pleaded guilty holding out for some leniency and but instead received a jolt to their title aspirations when six points were deducted. BDF XI, top of the be MOBILE Premier League pile with 41 points, now find themselves battling at number three.BDF XI are aware of the cardinal sin they committed - dragging a football matter to court.
The army side had won their case against BFA and the BPL in court, which left the authorities with egg on its face. During a press briefing shortly after BDF XI's victory in court, BPL chairperson Mike Molefe labeled the army side 'militant'. There were unconfirmed reports that some board members were irked by BDF XI's decision, which nearly marred the friendly between South Africa's Kaiser Chiefs and Mooched Centre Chiefs such that they vowed to deal with the club.When the verdict rolled out on Tuesday night, it was hardly surprising that the BPL had struck against a club viewed as 'militant'. To the BPL, it was a decisive blow.In fact it could have been worse. BDF XI could have been suspended for 18 months. The moment BDF XI walked to court, they fell into the hands of the waiting enemy. The Premier League office had been astronomically empowered. The FIFA statutes, under article 68 are unequivocal and so is the Botswana Football Association (BFA) constitution and the Play Rules and Regulations. The Disciplinary Committee (DC), which presided over the case with attorney Tshiamo Rantao prosecuting, was simply lapping up the rules and there was no contest over the guilty verdict. But BDF XI sympathisers will readily point to the treatment before the offence and eventually, the penalty.'BDF XI have been unfairly treated. Yes, they were wrong to take a football matter to court, but was there any avenue that was going to afford them a fair hearing? The problem was with the friendly match; that is where the issue is,' said a member of the Premier League board speaking on condition of anonymity.Indeed BDF XI were left cornered after the majority of the board members appeared to favour the friendly match between the two Chiefs.
The football leaders will find it difficult to remove the notion that the punishment meted out was nothing but settling a score. Although the suggestion that members of the DC, some known supporters of certain Premier League teams, were biased has already been dismissed as mischievous. 'It is not about how their league game was postponed. The issue is about a crime that was committed. As a prosecutor, I am not concerned about the treatment, but that rules were violated,' Rantao says. He says the court decision, which went BDF XI's way, does not preclude BFA or FIFA from ensuring adherence to rules and regulations. FIFA has actually urged sterner measures against clubs or individuals who refer football disputes to courts of law. Under the FIFA statutes, article 68.2 states that: 'Recourse to ordinary courts of law is prohibited unless specifically provided for in the FIFA regulations. Recourse to ordinary courts of law for all types of provisional measures is also prohibited.' In 68.3 FIFA calls for tough measures: 'The Associations shall impose sanctions on any party that fails to respect this obligation and ensure that any appeal against such sanctions shall likewise be strictly submitted to arbitration, and not to ordinary courts of law.' FIFA argues all disputes should be exhausted through internal processes before being referred to the Court of Sport Arbitration (CSA) in Switzerland, which critics argue is tedious. The BFA constitution says a club or individual who take football disputes to court should be suspended for a period not exceeding 18 months, forfeit goals or points among other sanctions. It says members of the association shall not take any dispute, which relates to the game of football, to court. Article 17.2.8 of the constitution says: 'The association and members hereby renounce the right to take football disputes before any Courts of Law.' The association's Play Rules and Regulations are also unequivocal, with section 12.4 stating that 'any affiliate of the BFA which refers a dispute concerning the game of football to the courts of law... liable to a fine of not more than P10, 000 and a docking of points. Furthermore, the club may be liable to a suspension from the BFA for a period of not more than 12 months.' Rantao argues that other teams have not been punished for taking football to court, as the cases were dissimilar to that of BDF XI. Security Systems, who sought recourse before the court last year after the team was thrown out of the Premier League did not face sanction as it had ceased to be a member.Cases involving Township Rollers, Notwane and BMC have all ended in courts recently but there are no structures to handle their disputes within the BPL and BFA and therefore they can seek arbitration in court. All the cases are ownership disputes.
However, critics will forever remain unconvinced that BDF XI was purely punished for taking a football dispute to court.'The club has been unfairly treated and it is a pity that they suffer a double blow as they have lost points as well. The DC could have fined the club without taking away points as they did not use a defaulter, but won all their games fairly,' said the board member who spoke to Mmegi Sport.
