[vc_row][vc_column width="1/1″][vc_column_text]As of today (June 1), the latest version of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) has come into effect. The changes made to the RSTP mainly concern the contractual relationship between players and clubs. In addition, a relevant change has been made to the new RSTP with a view to making FIFA's dispute resolution procedure more efficient. Finally, it is important to mention that as of today, the new FIFA Disciplinary Code also comes into effect. This contribution will briefly outline the main changes to the RSTP. In view of the upcoming summer transfer period, it is important to be aware of these recent changes.

First of all, Article 14(2)

A new paragraph 2 has been added to Article 14. This addition offers players and clubs the possibility to unilaterally terminate the player contract if one of the parties (club or player) abuses ("abusive conduct") with the aim of thereby forcing the other party to terminate its contract or change the terms of that contract. In particular, this article will give players a handle and more protection in case they are forced by clubs to terminate or modify their contracts. It will be interesting to see under what circumstances there is "abusive conduct" and what degree of proof is needed to invoke this article.

Article 14b is an entirely new article and deals with dissolution of the contract for non-payment of salary. The first paragraph allows the player to dissolve his contract with the club if he has not received at least 2 monthly salaries. The condition is that the club is given written notice of default, whereby the club is given a period of (at least) 15 days to still fulfill its financial obligations. While there used to be some confusion in case law as to whether a period of 2 or 3 months should be adhered to (where CAS in principle always adhered to 3 months and FIFA DRC also followed that line in recent years), FIFA has now provided more clarity on this. Paragraph 2 regulates the situation of salaries that are not paid on a monthly basis. Paragraph 3 gives the possibility to deviate from paragraphs 1 and 2 per CLA.

The amendment to Article 17 paragraph 1 deals with compensation for unlawful breach of contract. If the player does not sign a new contract with a new club, the compensation corresponds to the residual value of the former contract. If the player does enter into a new contract with a new club, his new salary will be deducted from this residual value. In the case of severance for overdue debts, an additional 3 to 6 months of monthly salary can be added, depending on the severity of the situation. Also with regard to this article, FIFA has included in the relevant article the possibility of deviating from this regulation by collective bargaining agreement.

Article 18 paragraph 6 has also been amended to prohibit so-called "grace periods" (in short, provisions whereby the payment obligation of an outstanding payment is contractually deferred) in contracts between players and clubs, stipulating that "grace periods" in collective bargaining agreements are again allowed.

The latest change is found in the new Article 24b is and deals with the enforcement of FIFA monetary decisions. This article gives the DRC & PSC the power to be able to impose sporting sanctions that will take effect if the unsuccessful party fails to pay within 45 days. This power was previously given to the DRC & PSC in the so-called 12bis procedures. FIFA is therefore now extending this to ordinary proceedings as well. It is a novelty that the DRC and PSC are given this power because previously a sporting sanction could only be imposed after intervention by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee. It is important to note that the 45-day period only starts to run from the moment the bank details have been provided to the opposing party (thus this period does not start from the moment the judgment is received).

Conclusion

We can conclude that a number of changes are a codification of already existing case law of FIFA DRC & CAS, and have been implemented to improve the legal position of the player. It will be interesting to see how the new case law will further interpret the new articles, especially since there is still some ambiguity with respect to a number of articles. However, the new amendments do make it clear that FIFA wishes to leave more room for collective bargaining agreements and thus it will be interesting to see how employer and employee organizations will respond to this.

So all in all, a lot of new interesting changes in which BMDW Lawyers will continue to closely monitor the new case law, as well as the upcoming larger changes in the pipeline.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]