Popular posts from this blog
Issue 1 – Did the Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) breach its obligations of due process and, if so, what were the consequences thereof? MCFC: The decision by the Investigatory Chamber of the CFCB to refer the case to the Adjudicatory Chamber of the CFCB before concluding their investigation was premature and did not allow MCFC the opportunity to present its case. The CFCB breached duties of confidentiality and impartiality when leaks came out about the investigation and were published in the media. UEFA: There were no procedural flaws, and even if there were, they were cured by the new review from CAS, and also the Adjudicatory Chamber. CAS: The fact that the case was referred to the Adjudicatory Chamber before concluding the investigation did not prejudice MCFC. The leaks did not impact the impartiality of the decision-making process. Agreed with UEFA that new review by CAS (and the Adjudicatory Chamber) has a curing effect because both parties must resubmit all evidence.
HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) have been clamping down on how tax is paid by football players over the last few years. On 31 March 2021, HMRC released new guidance. This guidance, along with the rise of investigations, indicates the changing attitude of HMRC to how tax on football agency fees will be handled going forward. What was the position? It is common in practice for an agent to represent both the player and the club in a transfer or contract negotiations. This is known as dual representation and is permitted by the Football Association under the current regulations. When representing both player and club, agents would split the services provided for the player and services provided for the club 50:50 for the purposes of tax. This position was accepted by HMRC until now. The club would pay 100% of the agency fee, of which 50% of this (plus VAT) would be paid on behalf of the player for the services provided to the player as a benefit-in-kind. A player or his employer must de
Sheffield Wednesday In November 2019, the EFL brought charges against SWFC for misconduct in relation to the sale of Hillsborough stadium. Charge 1 – SWFC included the sale of Hillsborough in their 2018 accounts, when it appears the stadium was not officially sold until 2019. The reason why SWFC sold their stadium and included the sale in the 2018 accounts was so that they could comply with the EFL’s Profit and Sustainability Rules (the EFL’s version of financial fair play) for the 3-year period 2015-18. SWFC argued that assertions made by the EFL at the time gave rise to a ‘legitimate expectation’ from SWFC that it could be included in the 2018 accounts. These assertions were made in emails from EFL employees. The Independent Disciplinary Commission made it clear this was no defence because employees of the EFL have no powers to waive or change the requirements of EFL rules. SWFC claimed that they had entered into a heads of terms agreement which was dated before 31 July,