VOCÊ SABIA?
O atleta de futsal, desde que autorizado pelo seu clube, pode optar por atuar em qualquer modalidade esportiva, inclusive no futebol de salão.
Veja o Estudo de caso Boletim Janeiro 2012 da TAS (Corte Internacional do Esporte)
Nenhum atleta que defender as cores da Seleção Brasileira seja no Futebol 7 Society, Futebol de Campo, Futsal (futebol de 5), Show Ball ou o nosso FUTEBOL DE SALÃO original podem ser sancionados. (Jurisprudência TAS - Extrema Corte Esportiva de âmbito Internacional)
O atleta de futsal, desde que autorizado pelo seu clube, pode optar por atuar em qualquer modalidade esportiva, inclusive no futebol de salão.
Veja o Estudo de caso Boletim Janeiro 2012 da TAS (Corte Internacional do Esporte)
Nenhum atleta que defender as cores da Seleção Brasileira seja no Futebol 7 Society, Futebol de Campo, Futsal (futebol de 5), Show Ball ou o nosso FUTEBOL DE SALÃO original podem ser sancionados. (Jurisprudência TAS - Extrema Corte Esportiva de âmbito Internacional)
Análise de caso - Boletim jan/2012 -
TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DU SPORT COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT
"...to impose bans on players who played in FIFUSA-sponsored indoor soccer competitions ... the court rejected the ASF’s (football) defense that it was contractually obligated to follow FIFA’s rules and may be disciplined by FIFA for failing to ban the plaintiff."
“ Sports law ”: implications for the development of international, comparative, and national law and global dispute resolution**
Prof. Matthew J. Mitten & Prof. Hayden Opie
Evolving judicial treatment of international sports agreements and rules: traditional vs.deferential approach
As the scope and detail of Olympic and international sports rules continue to expand, they may confl ict with national laws, thereby motivating athletes and others to seek the aid of a national court to overturn the adverse effects of those rules, at least within their respective home countries. Unless doing so
would contravene valid and applicable choice of law provisions, a domestic court generally will apply its substantive national law in resolving disputes within its jurisdiction. Therefore, Olympic and international sports agreements and rules must comply with national law, and some domestic courts have ruled accordingly. On the other hand, other courts have adopted a deferential approach by refusing to apply national law to the challenged rules or agreements.
The following 1988 case illustrates the traditional judicial approach. In Barnard v Australian Soccer Federation, the Federal Court of Australia ruled
that the Australian Soccer Federation (ASF) violated Australian competition law by banning the plaintiff, who played both semiprofessional indoor and outdoor soccer, from competing in outdoor soccer competitions48. At the time, the Federation of International Football Associations (FIFA), the IF for soccer, and the Federaçao Internacional de Salao (FIFUSA) were rivals for governing authority over the emerging game of indoor soccer. FIFA sought to extend its control to encompass indoor as well as outdoor soccer by directing its national affi liated bodies, including the ASF, to impose bans on players who played in FIFUSA-sponsored indoor soccer competitions. In turn, the ASF directed its regional affi liate, the Queensland Soccer Federation, to ban the plaintiff from playing in its outdoor competitions. Recognizing the primacy of Australian national law, the court rejected the ASF’s defense that it was contractually obligated to follow FIFA’s rules and may be disciplined by FIFA for failing to ban the plaintiff.
TRIBUNAL ARBITRAL DU SPORT COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT
"...to impose bans on players who played in FIFUSA-sponsored indoor soccer competitions ... the court rejected the ASF’s (football) defense that it was contractually obligated to follow FIFA’s rules and may be disciplined by FIFA for failing to ban the plaintiff."
“ Sports law ”: implications for the development of international, comparative, and national law and global dispute resolution**
Prof. Matthew J. Mitten & Prof. Hayden Opie
Evolving judicial treatment of international sports agreements and rules: traditional vs.deferential approach
As the scope and detail of Olympic and international sports rules continue to expand, they may confl ict with national laws, thereby motivating athletes and others to seek the aid of a national court to overturn the adverse effects of those rules, at least within their respective home countries. Unless doing so
would contravene valid and applicable choice of law provisions, a domestic court generally will apply its substantive national law in resolving disputes within its jurisdiction. Therefore, Olympic and international sports agreements and rules must comply with national law, and some domestic courts have ruled accordingly. On the other hand, other courts have adopted a deferential approach by refusing to apply national law to the challenged rules or agreements.
The following 1988 case illustrates the traditional judicial approach. In Barnard v Australian Soccer Federation, the Federal Court of Australia ruled
that the Australian Soccer Federation (ASF) violated Australian competition law by banning the plaintiff, who played both semiprofessional indoor and outdoor soccer, from competing in outdoor soccer competitions48. At the time, the Federation of International Football Associations (FIFA), the IF for soccer, and the Federaçao Internacional de Salao (FIFUSA) were rivals for governing authority over the emerging game of indoor soccer. FIFA sought to extend its control to encompass indoor as well as outdoor soccer by directing its national affi liated bodies, including the ASF, to impose bans on players who played in FIFUSA-sponsored indoor soccer competitions. In turn, the ASF directed its regional affi liate, the Queensland Soccer Federation, to ban the plaintiff from playing in its outdoor competitions. Recognizing the primacy of Australian national law, the court rejected the ASF’s defense that it was contractually obligated to follow FIFA’s rules and may be disciplined by FIFA for failing to ban the plaintiff.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário