REFUSAL TO RELEASE ODION IGHALO- ONE DISRESPECT TOO MANY?

REFUSAL TO RELEASE ODION IGHALO- ONE DISRESPECT TOO MANY? ~ Olubor Uyi ESQ.
Over the years, a major bone of contention has been the appropriate period to hold the African Cup of Nations (AFCON). Most football Eggheads have demanded that the AFCON be moved from the summer to the winter. Alas!!! The last AFCON held in Egypt, took place during the summer. However, this has proved unsustainable. Owing to the unfavorable weather condition in most African countries during the European summer calendar. Hence, the Confederation of African Football (CAF) reverted to holding the AFCON during the european winter calendar after it awarded the hosting rights to Cameroun.
However, this decision taken by CAF has not gone down well with most marquee clubs across the globe. As it would mean, they would have to do without some of their key players who are of African decent during the duration of the tourney.
The Super Eagles of Nigeria have been a major victim of this discontent. As it has seen in the past two weeks messrs Bonaventure Dennis and Odion Ighalo been withheld by their various clubs from participating in the AFCON. We will not expend much energy analysing the withholding of the former. However, for Mr. Ighalo, he was withheld on the ground that he had waived his rights to participate in the AFCON after he entered a legal arrangement with his Arab employers.
Yes, I concede that, as a principle of law, parties are expected to abide by the terms and conditions reached. However, these terms and conditions are subject to exceptions such as undue influence, legality, etc.
In this instant case, the employers of the player in question conduct their business subject to the rules and regulations of FIFA. And the FIFA regulations on the status and transfer of players (RSTP) recognises the AFCON as one of the Final competitions that clubs are bound to release their players. Therefore, I find it very vexatious and obnoxious that a club would exercise it's aggravated influence to unduly subdue a player to enter a covenant which runs contrary to the rules and regulations of FIFA. In fact, annex 1 of the RSTP completely prohibits any employer from entering any agreement with his employer with the intent of controlling his participation in any final competition recognized by FIFA. Thus, the act of Mr. Ighalo's employers to stop his participation in the AFCON on the ground that there exists a clause in his contract barring his participation amounts to a complete illegality and I expect in the coming weeks the domestic football Federation (the NFF) and CAF to do the needful in ensuring that this growing disrespect from marquee clubs towards African premier tourney doesn't go unchecked.
Furthermore, this should be a wake-up call to CAF and its subordinate bodies to ensure that the domestic leagues in Africa are functioning and have the capacity to produce the best players for Africa's premier competition. It is clear that we cannot continue to fold our hands and expect Europe and Asia to continue to help us nurture our talents without encountering this kind of embarrassment.

Comments

  1. E. Odiase EsqJanuary 7, 2022 at 11:52 PM

    Good Right up. These Players too don't want to come. But the contract agreement is void ab initio.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Analysing CAS decision on the prortionality of the FIFA Football Agents Regulation

Analysing CAS decision on the prortionality of the FIFA Football Agents Regulation~E.U Olubor Esq. The subject of this dispute bother on the fundamental question, whether FIFA can extend its regulatory powers beyond the task of governing the sport of football itself and cover peripheral economic activities, particularly the market of football agent service which it did with the establishment of the FFAR The Panel in reviewing Article 15(2) of the FFAR which imposes a service fee cap on service charges to be paid to football agents. The panel in assessing its compatibility with article 101TFEU. The panel concurs with the position of PROFAA that FIFA is an association of undertakings which holds a dominant market position within the definition of article 101& 102 of the TFEU respectively and also relying on the decision in Piau where the EU General Court specifically confirmed that FIFA holds a “collective dominant” position under Article 102 TFEU in the relevant market of football a
Read more

UNDERSTANDING THE DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE (ECJ) ON THE PROPOSED EUROPEAN SUPER LEAGUE

UNDERSTANDING THE DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE (ECJ) ON THE PROPOSED EUROPEAN SUPER LEAGUE~ Emmanuel Uyi Olubor Esq.  The ECJ ruled on the issue of whether UEFA or FIFA rules restricting teams from constituting a separate league are anticompetitive and a breach of a dominant position.  Before I descend into the nitty-gritty of the decision of the ECJ, I would like to commence by establishing certain facts First, the decision is not binding in Britain as a result of BREXIT, thus British teams like Arsenal, Chelsea et al. Can't use this decision reached by the ECJ as a pretext to join the European Super League. Secondly, as against what was reported by most media outlets, the ECJ did not authorize the establishment of a European Soccer league, instead what played out was that the ECJ ruled on points of law on an issue that was sent to it by the commercial court in Spain which was hitherto instituted by the European Super League Company. The ECJ decided on whether UEFA an
Read more

GUNNARSDÓTTIR v OLYMPIC LYONNAIS: An AFFIRMATION BY FIFA ON THE MATERNITY RIGHTS OF FEMALE FOOTBALLERS

GUNNARSDÓTTIR v OLYMPIC LYONNAIS: An AFFIRMATION BY FIFA ON THE MATERNITY RIGHTS OF FEMALE FOOTBALLERS.~Uyi Olubor Esq. The new edition of the FIFA Regulation on Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP)came with numerous innovations. One of those innovations is the enthronement of Maternity rights for Female Footballers. To the extent that, football clubs are forbidden from making the validity of a player's contract subject to a player being or becoming pregnant during its term. These new provisions were recently tested in the dispute between Sarah Bjork Gunnarsdóttir v Olympique Lyonnais at the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chambers (DRC). The dispute arose after a Player who just became pregnant agreed with her club, to leave her base in France and return to her home country in Iceland for the duration of her pregnancy. The club immediately, filed for the social security allowance on behalf of the player amounting to EUR 45.99 per day. The player then inquired as to the reasons why her sa
Read more