Criminal Law - Sports Law

FFA Code of Conduct (In particular breach of Clause2.1)

Grievance regulatory regulations FFA Disciplinary Committee

 

Section 66C(1) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

 

Tom, an A grade soccer player, had been charged with having sexual intercourse with a person between the ages of 10 and 14. At the time he was 18.  A plea of “not guilty” had been entered and the player had a strong defence case. At law there is a “presumption of innocence” in such matters.

 

On discovering the outstanding charge the Football Federation of Australia (FFA) unilaterally determined to issue a disclosure at a press conference and to impose sanctions. The player was given no real right of reply and was not permitted to make submissions on sanctions. The FFA relied on a “deeming provision” which provided that any player who committed or was charged with a criminal offence was deemed to have acted in a manner which had brought football into “disrepute” and consequently rendered the player subject to sanctions. 

 

Through his solicitor, Tom advised the FFA by way of formal response letter, a submission that the police case was weak and that defence case was strong. The common law “presumption of innocence was pressed” and a submission was made that sanctions were inappropriate under the circumstances.  

 

The FFA subsequently formally advised Tom by way of written decision that he had been found to have committed a serious breach of clause 2.1 by being charged with a criminal offence. He was suspended from playing for his A-league club for four months and from playing for any national team until determination of the criminal proceedings. Tom was therefore ineligible to play for Australia at any junior or senior level or to play in any national competitions until after the completion of his court case.

 

As Tom was likely to be selected for the World Cup competition and other international events this was a potentially serious blow to his immediate career prospects. The decision was followed quickly on the same day by a formal announcement by the FFA to the media by way of televised media conference, the nature of the criminal charge, the decision of the ruling body and the sanctions imposed. There was a short flurry of media reporting (mostly accurate) together with some distressing blogs and at least one misleading You Tube animation.

 

An appeal against the decision and the sanctions of the FFA to the Disciplinary Committee was lodged.

 

Tom’s career has effectively been derailed and his reputation tarnished. The findings on merit affected his commercial value. He began to suffer depression and feelings of hopelessness. He was forced to seek psychological help. He missed training and found it difficult to motivate himself. He was publicly humiliated without any opportunity to set the public record straight. He has been denied the ability to play at club level, international level and to promote himself in image and reputation as a professional footballer. As a result of the sanctions Tom will be unable to participate in the U20 World Cup yet without the sanctions he would certainly have been selected. This will have substantial impact on his sponsorship and European football opportunities. He was expected to have a strong international career.

 

1.                  FFA did not allow Tom a bona fide opportunity to be heard on sanction

2.                  The conduct of Tom was a private activity outside the public domain with no nexus between his employment and the criminal charge and not covered by the code.

3.                  The findings on merit constitute a restraint on Tom’s trade

4.                  The restraints go further than necessary to protect the FFA’s legitimate interest in protecting the reputation of football

5.                  General justice and fairness require proof of actual disrepute before a player can be sanctioned

6.                  Tom did not bring football into disrepute as FFA must prove that the public opinion of football (as opposed to Tom) diminished nas a result of Tom’s conduct.

7.                  The sanctions are proportional or reasonable in light of Tom’s conduct.

8.                  The sanctions are contrary to Australian law.

 

 

The disastrous impact of punitive sanctions on a professional player are quite obvious.

 

By giving sensible legal and tactical advice to the players who may otherwise inadvertently act against their own interests.

 

By representing the players at a professional level in appeal or grievance proceedings. 

 

By providing clear, sensible advice and a range of legal options at a time of emotional distress.

 

In all such cases call LAC Lawyers now for an appointment on (02) 9904 6800 to obtain proper professional advice and assistance.