When to deduct points?

(published in Slovak Sport Daily)

In our footballing region, the rare disciplinary decision to deduct points from Dukla Banská Bystrica and Dubnica by the SFZ Disciplinary Committee for failing to pay players the amounts ordered by the SFZ Arbitration Court didn’t come as much of a surprise. There really was no other option. In the end, no one, including the sanctioned clubs, protested.

Points deductions and transfer bans are the most powerful tools for enforcing sporting justice in response to the kinds of offenses the global football community considers most serious. The possibility of such sanctions, along with faster proceedings, greater expertise, and the specialization of sports arbitrators—is one of the strongest arguments in favor of sports arbitration tribunals and disciplinary panels over ordinary courts. These tools are used whenever necessary. Take one example: because FIFA views the protection of young players under 16 as fundamental, even FC Barcelona received a two-window transfer ban for violating that rule.

Another cornerstone principle, enshrined in every relevant document, is that football stakeholders must resolve disputes exclusively through football arbitration bodies, not civil courts.

This year, our own disciplinary committee had to deal with a breach of this principle. A second-division club rejected the jurisdiction of the SFZ Arbitration Court in a financial dispute with a licensed agent. After waiting in vain for the club to agree to arbitration, the agent was forced to turn to a civil court. A subsequent complaint was rightly upheld by the disciplinary committee, which concluded that a disciplinary offense had occurred, later confirmed by the SFZ Appeals Committee.

However, the disciplinary measure was surprising: not a stricter penalty, but a fine of just €1,500. This sets a dangerous precedent, signaling to clubs that they can bypass the sports tribunal, let the other side suffer through a lengthy court battle, and still only face a symbolic fine.

To its credit, the SFZ leadership responded, the president filed an appeal over the insufficient penalty. But the independent SFZ Appeals Committee dismissed the case, ruling that the SFZ was not an “interested party with legal standing in the matter.” In effect, it decided that no one had the right to appeal on behalf of justice.

What next? Slovak football regulations need to be amended to ensure that violations of core principles, such as refusing to resolve disputes through sports tribunals, are met with stricter automatic penalties. There also needs to be a way to appeal lenient decisions, even when it's not in the offender’s favor. It's not enough to simply solve the basic equations like “2+2=4” in Banská Bystrica and Dubnica - we also need to correctly evaluate more complex cases. And there will surely be many more opportunities to do so.