In the past football year, several games in the Eredivisie were stopped. Misconduct by spectators in the stands was usually the reason for this. Recently, Ajax fans stopped the match against Feyenoord out of dissatisfaction with the policy being implemented. The game was played three days later without an audience. The match that Ajax would play on that day, against FC Volendam, was postponed to November. Both Ajax and Volendam expressed their disagreement with the KNVB's decision and investigated legal action. In the end, it was decided to refrain from proceedings and the classic was finished on Wednesday afternoon. This blog highlights whether Ajax and Volendam could have scored in court.
To answer that question, we need to open the KNVB Professional Football Competition Rules (RWBV). This contains everything related to the Dutch professional football competition program. This program is established and amended by the professional football league board, which represents the KNVB, the Eredivisie CV and the First Division Cooperative.
According to the RWBV, if a match is not played, the KNVB disciplinary bodies must first consider whether a party is to blame for not completing that match. This is the case, for example, if the supporters of that club cause disorder and the club has taken insufficient measures to prevent this. After the disciplinary bodies have let the competition board know their opinion, the competition board can make a decision about the match. In principle, the league board decides that the unplayed part of the game will be played at a later time, but can also decide to mark the score as the final score at the time of strike or to have the entire game played again. This procedure can only be waived if no overriding interests of the clubs or third parties involved are harmed.
The RWBV further states that a team is obliged to play a match if the preliminary determination of that match has been notified at least four days in advance and the final determination at least 48 hours in advance. Once the competition has been fixed, it can only be postponed under two conditions. First, the delay must be announced to the clubs concerned at least twelve hours in advance and the league board must have received a request for delay at least three days in advance. The regulations do not include who can make such a request and how the competition board will assess this request.
After Ajax's match against Feyenoord was stopped, the league board actually made two decisions. The league board decided that the Classic would be played a few days later and that the match against Volendam would be postponed. In addition to the described disciplinary procedure, a club can also go directly to court by filing summary proceedings. In this urgent procedure, a judge may be asked to temporarily suspend or completely annul a decision by an association/union. The judge for interim relief will first consider whether Ajax and FC Volendam have an urgent interest. In this case, Ajax and FC Volendam had that interest, because they wanted to play against each other two days later. Only when the urgent interest has been established will the judge review the decisions. In doing so, he usually uses marginal testing. This means that the judge is reluctant to assess whether the KNVB could reasonably have reached these decisions.
The first decision, to play the classic a few days later, may have violated the obligation to hear the findings of the disciplinary bodies before taking decisions. Indeed, it is unclear whether the league board has complied with this requirement. If the KNVB did not await the findings of the disciplinary bodies, this would not automatically mean that the judge had intervened. A judge will only intervene in summary proceedings if the overriding interests of the parties (Ajax and Volendam in this case) so require. The judge ultimately weighs the interests of all the interests involved.
In that consideration, the judge could, for example, take into account that Volendam's match would be postponed, thereby disadvantaging Ajax and Volendam supporters. Whether these interests give sufficient reason for a summary court to intervene in the KNVB's decision-making is questionable.
The decision to postpone Ajax's match against Volendam had to meet two conditions. The first condition, the delay must be announced 48 hours in advance, was met. Whether the second condition, which states that a request for a delay must be made at least three days in advance, has also been met, is highly questionable. It is not clear whether, by whom and on what grounds a request was made and whether this was done in a timely manner. If there has been no (timely) request, the judge could also have suspended this decision, subject to the above test.
The league board cannot simply decide to cancel or postpone a match. This is subject to conditions in the regulations. It is highly questionable whether the competition board has complied with these conditions when deciding on the Classic. If not, it is possible that the judge had suspended one or both decisions in summary proceedings and Ajax could have simply played against Volendam. In that decision, the judge had weighed the interests of all parties involved. If that balance of interests had been in favor of Ajax and Volendam, they would have been a lot more successful in court than on the field this season.
Stef van der Veldt
lawyer
.svg)
