Newsletter

Virton, the legal ball in the pinball machine of Belgian football | Proximus League

1B club Virton grabbed next to a pro license, but defends himself as a devil in a holy water font. The BAS, the Belgian Competition Authority (BMA), the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeal … They all got the Luxembourg citizens to visit. For example, the club hovers between 1A and the second amateur class: an overview of the legal joust.

The soap starts around Virton at the beginning of April: the License Committee of the Belgian Football Association (RBFA) does not give 1B clubs Lokeren, Virton, Roeselare and Lommel the green light. After one season in 1B, Virton threatens to drop back into the amateur class.

The Luxembourg citizens file a lawsuit at the Belgian Arbitration Court for Sport (BAS), but they also get zero on the appeal there. The club fails to prove viable for the 2020-2021 season and does not receive a pro license.

The first salvo: 3 procedures simultaneously

Virton responds as if stung by a wasp and takes three legal weapons from his arsenal to win a proflicense:

  • Virton lodges a complaint with the Court of First Instance in Brussels for not granting the license by both the License Commission and the BAS. Virton also claims compensation of EUR 15 million from the RBFA to compensate for the damage incurred in the license file.
  • Virton denounces “the discriminatory nature” of certain licensing conditions in the federal regulations and starts a procedure at the LOW, which has to deal with the licensing regulations.
  • The Luxembourgers also turn to the Belgian Competition Authority (BMA), an independent body that monitors compliance with competition rules. According to Virton, the strict licensing conditions affect the economic freedom of the clubs.

BMA brings bad news and good news

The BMA offers Virton some hope: the complaint makes sense and is submitted to the Competition College. But the disillusion follows not much later. The Commission finds that, despite repeated invitations, Virton has not taken the opportunity to submit a bank guarantee to the License Committee or the BAS, for example.

Virton nevertheless extracts an element that can serve his own case from the assessment “prima facie” by the Competition College. According to the club, the Football Association should not disregard sponsorship contracts from “prohibited entities” in its assessment of continuity.

In Virton’s case, this is the company Leopard, which is in the portfolio of club owner Flavio Becca. “Without that rule, which has been declared illegal and erroneous, Virton would not have run into problems of demonstrating continuity,” the club said.

Enough reasons for Virton to approach the BAS and the Licensing Committee for a second assessment. The club leaves it to the RBFA to decide which body may review the file again.

Without that rule, which has been declared illegal and erroneous, Virton would not have run into problems of demonstrating continuity.

Virton draws courage from BMA ruling

Competition postponed

But Virton doesn’t put his eggs in one basket. The proceedings at the Brussels Court of First Instance and the BAS are also still ongoing. Virton will be allowed to plead his case before the BAS on August 4.

That the competition starts again just 4 days later is therefore not to the liking of the Luxembourgers. Virton then goes to the judge of first instance in Brussels to postpone the competition start in 1A, 1B and 1st and 2nd amateur and the Croky Cup.

The club also asks for compensation of 5 million euros per match day that would continue anyway.

Rematch against Beerschot? Yes, or rather not

To make the whole story even more complex, we have to go back to the end of January: then Virton won his league match in 1B against Beerschot after a controversial goal. The party’s single hit was unjustly approved.

After some legal tug of war, the BAS decided that the game should be played again on July 26. And that even gives Virton a water chance at 1A. With a win it jumps over Westerlo to the first place in the final classification of 1B. In the unlikely event that the second promotion final between OHL and Beerschot would not take place, the final classification in 1B could be the deciding factor.

But Virton also realizes in the meantime that there is little chance that the promotion final in 1B on August 2 will not continue. Because there is “nothing sporty at stake” in the rematch against Beerschot, it has now asked the RBFA by mail to cancel the match.

The controversial goal after 1’30 “:


Mutiny in the player group

The players may not like Virton’s desperate attempts. In addition, wages would not be paid in time. “The
club takes us hostage with all those procedures against the RBFA. While Virton one
claims for damages, our rights are not respected, “they write in an open letter.

“The club prevents us from doing our job and makes it impossible to find a new employer. Many players have been in depression or serious financial problems for months. We also have to pay our bills.”

Virton’s answer is – how could it be otherwise – legal. The club will claim damages from players who unilaterally terminate their contract with the club.

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Trending