Editor’s note: Kester Mekenkamp is an LL.M. student in European Law
at Leiden University and an intern at the ASSER International Sports Law Centre.
This blog is, to a great extent, an excerpt of his forthcoming thesis, which he
shall submit in order to complete his master’s degree.
This is the
second part of a three-piece blog on FIFA’s provision on the protection of
minors, Article 19 of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players. The contribution in its entirety aims to provide
an encompassing overview of the rule’s lifespan since its inception in 2001. The previous
(first) part has shed light on the “birth” and “first years” of the provision, and
as such illustrated the relevant developments from 2001 till 2009. This second
part covers the rule’s “adolescent years”, which span from 2009 to the present.
The major changes put forward in the 2009, 2015 and 2016 versions of the RSTP
will be addressed. Thereafter the important CAS decisions concerning Article
19, Muhic, Vada I and II, FC Barcelona, RFEF, and the FIFA decisions relating to Real Madrid and Atlético
Madrid, will be scrutinized. The third, and final, part will constitute a
substantive assessment of the provision under EU Internal Market law.
Given that the
version adopted in 2008 left Article 19 untouched, the 2009 RSTP
represented the next significant step in the regulation of the protection of
minors. It had become clear that the system as used up to that point was
inadequate to achieve its goal,
most notably because several national associations still neglected to strictly
apply the rules. In
response to this perceived failure, a new set of rules and procedures was adopted
and came into force on 1 October 2009: the creation of a special FIFA oversight
sub-committee of the PSC, the introduction of a special provision on football
academies, and the instalment of a transfer matching system.
Importantly, with the enactment of these new regulations, Articles 19 and 19bis
RSTP were included in the set of provisions binding upon the national level,
which consequently had to be incorporated into the national associations’
regulations without alteration.
11-member PSC sub-committee (consisting of representatives of the
confederations, leagues, clubs, players and the PSC’s chairman and deputy
chairman) became the supervising body concerning the examination, and potential
approval, of every international transfer and first registration of a minor
Its approval is mandatory and needs to be obtained prior to any request for any
Moreover, non-compliance can be sanctioned by the FIFA’s Disciplinary
Committee, although a limited exception from this obligation exists for minor
RSTP on the registration and reporting of minors at academies was another
substantial modification with respect to the protection of minors.
A football academy is defined by the regulations as “an organisation or an independent legal entity whose
primary, long-term objective is to provide players with long-term training
through the provision of the necessary training facilities and infrastructure.
This shall primarily include, but not be limited to, football training centres,
football camps, football schools, etc.”
With the creation of this new provision, all minor players that attend an
academy, indifferent to whether or not that academy takes part in a national
championship or has a legal, financial or de
facto link to a club participating in a national championship, must be
reported to the national association upon whose territory the academy operates.
This regulation of academies resembles an attempt to deal with what was
previously a major loophole, the unregistered academies.
The third major
change was the instalment of a transfer matching system (“TMS”), which is a
web-based data information system that, first of all, aims to simplify the
processing of international transfers.
Its task is to provide more details to football’s governing bodies on all
transfers taking place.
This should furthermore increase the transparency of the individual
transactions, and in doing so, it will “improve the credibility and standing of
the entire transfer system, and additionally also “safeguard the protection of
practice, the TMS is a central database that monitors the international
movement of players. As mentioned earlier, every application for an
international transfer by a minor player must receive the approval of the PSC
sub-committee. This process is managed through the transfer matching system,
the details of which are stipulated in annexe 2 of the RSTP.
The sub-committee decides with three of its members, or, in urgent cases,
through a sole member acting as “single judge”. The national association wanting to register a player,
files the application for an approval of an international transfer (or first
registration) into the TMS.
Accompanying this application, the TMS requires a great number of specific
documents, depending on the facts of the case and the exception that is being
mandatory release of information spans documentation on, inter alia: academic and football education, accommodation,
player’s and/or player’s parent(s) contract, parental authorisation and a birth
Subsequently, the sub-committee decides whether or not it gives its approval.
If so, an ITC will be delivered via the TMS and the transfer can be finalized.
Parties involved have 10 days to inquire for the grounds of the decision, after
that an appeal before the CAS is still open. Note that this procedure for
minors differs from a regular international transfer, in that for the latter
there is no substantive review by a third party. The clubs provide the relevant
information and the TMS merely, automatically, checks whether the two strands
of facts match.
The Elmir Muhic
system laid down in the 2009 RSTP operates in roughly the same manner today, as
of 2010, 2012, 2014, 2015, did not substantially amend the core rules.
The case law of the CAS during this period, from 2009 to 2012, provides some
examples of the application and interpretation of the 2009 rules.
In Elmir Muhic v. FIFA, a 16-year-old
football player from Bosnia-Herzegovina joined the German OFC Kickers
Following the PSC sub-committee refusal to give its approval, the case ended up
before the CAS. The Panel found that none of the three exceptions applied in
the matter at hand. It did specify, in relation to the “parents-rule” of
Article 19(2)(a), that the term “parents” needs to be applied stricto sensu.
Even though it could “conceivably cover situations beyond the natural parents”,
such was not the case here.
Muhic’s parents still lived in Bosnia and Herzegovina (and it remained
uncertain why they did not joined their child), while the player stayed at his
aunt’s house. The
Panel stated that an aunt (and relatives alike) cannot replace the player’s
parents in order to invoke the exception.
The Vada II case
Around the same
time, Vada II made an
important contribution to the application of Article 19(2)(b) (the first case had evolved
along the lines of the Acuña award).
Valentin Vada was a football player living in Argentina, with dual citizenship.
Next to possessing the Argentinian nationality, Vada also owned an Italian
16-year-old was of the opinion that he could transfer to the French Club
Girondins de Bordeaux, based on the “EU and EEA-rule” of Article 19(2)(b) RSTP.
FIFA’s single judge rejected the request, as he found the facts of the transfer
not to match the strict requirements of the exception.
The arbiter reasoned that this exception is based on the criterion of
territoriality, not nationality, and thus only refers to “a transfer taking
place within the territory of the EU or EEA”.
Therefore, as Vada wished to transfer from an Argentinian club, Article
19(2)(b) RSTP could not be applied. Be that as it may, the CAS Panel argued (in
length) otherwise. It agreed that the “EU and EEA-rule” merely stipulates a
criterion of territoriality not nationality.
Still, it also noted that the FIFA’s RSTP commentary (as abovementioned)
revealed that this exception was included in the 2001 informal agreement
between FIFA/UEFA and the Commission in order for it to respect EU free
movement law. Thus,
this objective to comply with EU free movement rights could not be ignored.
Additionally the CAS found, in line with FC Midtjylland, that the list
of exceptions in Article 19(2) is not exhaustive.
This was supported by a document submitted by Girondins de Bordeaux setting out
the case law of the PSC sub-committee. It explained that “if a club believes
that very special circumstances, which do not meet any of the exceptions
provided…the association of the club concerned may, on behalf of its affiliate,
submit a formal request in writing to the FIFA sub-commission to consider the
specific case and make a formal decision”.
Moreover, the document showed that the sub-committee in the majority of cases takes
free movement law into consideration when “assessing the transfer of a player
who, with a passport from an EU or EEA country, wishes to register with a club
in an EU or EEA country”.
Consequently, the Panel accepted an unwritten exception allowing a player such
as Vada, with the nationality of one of the EU or EEA member countries, to
invoke Article 19(2)(b) RSTP.
The Spanish lawbreakers
onwards the three biggest and richest football clubs in Spain, at the same time
belonging to the top 15 clubs worldwide, Atlético
Madrid, Real Madrid and FC Barcelona, found themselves embroiled in a number of
legal disputes as a result of signing minors.
A significant step unto its own, as it demonstrates that FIFA will not shy away
from taking on the big iconic clubs when enforcing its regulations.
saga” kicked-off with a dispute concerning a US teenager, of 13 years old, who
moved to Spain together with his parents and wanted to
register with Atlético Madrid in September 2012.
Once more, the main question was whether the factual constellation of the case
supported the application of the “parents-rule” (did the parents move to the
country of the new club for reasons not linked to football?), and again the
Panel stressed, in line with both Acuña and FC
need to apply the protection of minors rules in a “strict, rigorous and
This means, following its decision in Vada
I, that the family’s move must be unconnected altogether to football.
It is insufficient to establish that the move is partially connected to their
child’s football activities, although not being the primary aim.
The Panel’s factual assessment distinguished multiple relevant elements to come
to a decision on the possible application of the exception. Contra: the short timeline (six weeks)
between the minor’s arrival in Madrid and the registration request (which hints
at a previous intention); the player’s previous footballing activities; the
player’s statement, reported on his school’s official website, “that the reason
of his move to Spain was the possibility that he has been given to play with
the Club Atlético de Madrid”.
Pro: the family of the player is
partially Colombian, which connected them to Spain for reasons of culture and
language; “The family is wealthy and…the basic maintenance of the family is not
dependent of a working activity of the parents”; The player’s sister had
already moved to Europe for her studies; The first preparations were
undoubtedly made several months before the interaction with the club commenced;
The club does not have a particular interest in the player “other than having
in its team a teenager which may have a certain talent for football, such as
many others in the Madrid area”.
In sum, the CAS concluded that, due to the exceptional facts, there is no link
between the move of the family and their son’s football activities.
The FC Barcelona
fellow-townsman Real Madrid ended up in a likewise
dispute with FIFA regarding a 13-year-old player from Venezuela.
The main hitter
however was the case regarding their Catalonian archenemy: FC Barcelona.
The FIFA TMS, in January 2013, became aware of a potential breach, which
ultimately lead to a case involving registrations of 31 minors.
These players, of various nationalities, were registered at FC Barcelona in the
period from 2005 until 2012.
Via the FIFA Disciplinary Committee and Appeal Committee, who both found the
club to have violated i.a. Articles 19(1), 19(3), 19(4), 19bis, and Annexe 2 of
the RSTP, the case ended up before the CAS.
The Panel addressed the different potentially breached articles in a
consecutive order, starting with Article 19(1) RSTP. The Panel found FC
Barcelona to have infringed this provision with respect to nine players. The
club had tried to shelter behind the fact that it had complied with all the
rules laid down by the regional Catalonian football association, and, as such,
had acted rightfully. The Panel held instead that the ban on internationally
transferring minors is without doubt “addressed to both ‘associations’ and
It thereby emphasized that national associations are paramount to the
enforcement of FIFA’s statutes, and in the extent thereof the enforcement of
the RSTP. Regional associations, such as the Catalonian, cannot govern the
international transfer of players.
Given that clubs are the starting point of every international transfer, they
“must primarily observe this ban”. The Panel stressed furthermore that Article
19(4) RSTP marks this by obliging the associations to ensure the clubs’
compliance in this matter, and moreover, Article 1(4) RSTP, explains that the
Regulations “are binding for all associations and clubs”.
FC Barcelona may thus not hide behind apparent mistakes/breaches by both the
Catalonian and the Spanish football associations, given that it “did not even
try to request the transfers based on any one of the exceptions”.
Furthermore, FC Barcelona “should have been aware of the simple fact that they
[the Spanish and the Catalonian associations] could not register the minors in
any legitimate way under the RSTP”, which the CAS compared to “wilful
ignorance” or, the “deliberate shutting of eyes”.
Of the group of
minors at the centre of the dispute, three were below the age of 12. FC
Barcelona put forward a restrictive reading of the personal scope of
application of the Articles 19 and 9(4) RSTP (2010 edition), arguing “that
there are no prohibitions for the transfer of players under the age of 12”.
It thereby relied on Article 9 of the 2006 RSTP Commentary that stipulates “for
players younger than 12, the Regulations do not provide for an obligation to
issue an ITC for international transfers”.
The Panel nonetheless made short work of this argumentation by explaining that
Article 9(4) RSTP’s absence of an obligation to issue an ITC for under-12
players merely addresses a formal requirement. The substantive rules for the
international transfer of minors (irrespective whether below or above 12 years
of age) are found in Article 19 RSTP, including paragraph 2 of that article.
This led the Panel to conclude that “no ITC was required when the transfers
occurred for players below the age of 12; their transfer nevertheless, can only
be lawful if it complies with the requirements embedded in Article 19(2) RSTP”.
The Panel also noted the amendment to Article 9(4) RSTP, effective as of 1
March 2015, which lowered the age at which an ITC is required from 12 to 10.
In short, the
CAS also ruled that FC Barcelona had violated Article 19(3) RSTP in relation to
one minor, for the same reasons referred to in its findings under Article 19(1)
Moreover, six cases violated Article 19(4) RSTP, as the Catalonian association
had failed to refer these transfers to the PSC sub-committee. These
infringements of paragraph 4 further justify that “sanctions may also be
imposed (…) on the clubs that reached an agreement for the transfer of a
minor”. The CAS in this regard defined the interpretation of the word
“agreement” to include “agreements concluded between the registering club and
the player himself, his parents, agents, etc”.
Further, the Panel established a breach of Article 19bis RSTP for all 31
players under investigation.
This constitutes a procedural violation, being “the lack of reporting of
information regarding the progress and development of players” attending FC
Barcelona’s well-known academy ‘La Masía’”.
Be that as it may, the CAS did praise the training and educational track record
of La Masía. Thereby it deviated from the Appeal Committee’s ruling. In
opposition to the latter it found that the attending players’ potential
football careers are not endangered. On the contrary, if FC Barcelona in the
future commits itself to its reporting duties under Article 19bis RSTP, then it
“will be contributing to the overarching principles governing the protection of
minors, since it will be providing other clubs with an enviable benchmark for
the education and training of players”.
The CAS Panel found the sanctions imposed by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
and the Appeal Committee to be proportionate, and hence confirmed the earlier
FC Barcelona was imposed a transfer ban for two transfer periods, as well as a
fine of CHF 450,000.
case and latest developments
Things had not
completely settled down yet with regard to the Spanish
national football association: Real Federación Española de Fútbol (“RFEF”).
As has become clear in the coverage of the Barcelona
case, apparent mistakes were made in the Spanish supervision of the ban on
international transfers of minors. In a dispute regarding 31 international
minor transfers to several Spanish football clubs,
the RFEF was found by the CAS to have violated its guarding role and thereby
induced a passive infringement of Articles 19(1), 19(3), 19(4) together with
Annexes 2 and 3, and Articles 5(1) and 9(1) RSTP. 
A fine of CHF 280,000 was imposed. The Panel pointed out that the RFEF could
not justify its failure by arguing that the RSTP was conflicting with Spanish
law, given that the rules on the protection of minors had come about in the
2001 agreement between FIFA/UEFA and the EU, which was acknowledged by Spain as
a Member State of the EU.
Also, for 21 players below the age of 12 the RFEF had failed to fulfil its
notification obligations, which the Panel condemned for the exact same reasons
as in the FC Barcelona case.
The RFEF had failed to “make use of the statutory frameworks and tools at its
disposal to ensure the full protection of minors”, and was found negligent as
it failed to ensure that clubs and regional associations strictly complied with
Furthermore, it had in some cases not fulfilled its obligation to seek the
approval of the PSC subcommittee nor even submitted an application for such
2016, a fate similar to that of “Barça” fell upon both Atlético and Real
The concise FIFA press release indicates that investigations were conducted by
FIFA TMS, which “concerned minor players who were involved and participated in
competitions with the clubs over various periods”, between roughly 2005 and
2014. Both clubs were sanctioned for violating, amongst others, Articles 19 and
19bis as well as annexe 2 of the RSTP. The clubs appealed (by which the
sanctions were temporarily lifted), yet in September 2016 these appeals were
similarly rejected by FIFA’s Appeal Committee.
This meant that Atlético Madrid and Real Madrid will have to serve a transfer
ban lasting two consecutive transfer periods (e.g. until January 2018), during
which they will not be able to attract any players, and were fined CHF 900,000
and CHF 360,000 respectively. The clubs were given a 90 day period “to
regularise the situation of all minor players concerned”.
A little over a week later, Real Madrid informed the CAS that it would appeal
FIFA’s decision before the court in Lausanne.
The final outcome of this appeal is still unknown.
In a similar
vein, very recently, the English club Manchester City has come under suspicion
for allegedly wanting to transfer a 15-year-old player from Argentina, while
the Dutch club Ajax was denied by the CAS to sign an American player aged 15.
These cases exemplify that clubs might just not be ready to put the practice of
internationally transferring minors to bed yet. Moreover, the adaptation of the
relevant rules is a sign for the need of continuous monitoring the effect of
the provision on the protection of minors. The latest update, the June 2016
version, has incorporated another exception to the prohibition for the
international transfer of minors, which has been
created through the Sub-Committee’s case law.
Players that have for the five years preceding the request continuously lived
in the country (other than that of their nationality) of intended registration
are now exempted from the prohibition.
In this part 2
of the blog, I have shown that FIFA’s restrictions on minor transfers have
become more stringent after the 2009 reform. In recent years, FIFA has also
cracked down on various prominent clubs, especially in Spain, which were still
involved in recruiting minor players while disregarding, with the tacit support
of their national federation, FIFA’s rules. Unsurprisingly, these developments
have also flared up again the debate on the compatibility of those rules with
Thus, the next, third and final, part of this blog on FIFA’s provision on the
protection of minors will offer a substantive assessment of FIFA’s rule under
the requirements of EU Internal Market law.
 A. Najarian, “’The
Lost Boys’: FIFA's Insufficient Efforts To Stop Trafficking of Youth
Law. J. 2015, p. 167; R. Simons, “Protection
of Minors vs. European Law”,
Eur Sports Law Bulletin 2010, p. 172.
 R. Simons, “FIFA
Transfer Matching System wel effectief?”,
TvS&R 2011, p. 100.
Circular no. 1190, 20 May 2009.
 Art. 19(4) FIFA
Circular no. 1206, 13 October 2009.
Circular 1209, 30 October 2009.
 Art. 19bis FIFA RSTP 2009.
 Definition 12 FIFA RSTP 2009.
 Art. 19bis(1) and (2) FIFA RSTP 2009; Supra at 5.
 V. Derungs, “Protecting
underage football players in the transfer system”, World Sports L. Report 2015, p. 15.
 Definition 13 FIFA RSTP 2016.
 N. St. Cyr Clarke, “The
beauty and the beast: Taming the ugly side of the people’s game”, 2011 Columbia
Journal of European Law, p.
Circular No. 1174, 12 January 2009.
 Annexe 2 FIFA RSTP 2016
 Art. 3(2) Annexe 2 FIFA RSTP 2009.
 Art. 5(1) Annexe 2 FIFA RSTP 2009.
 Art. 5(2) Annexe 2 FIFA RSTP 2009.
 FIFA Document, Protection
of minors – Pertinent facts to be included in documents.
 Art. 9 and Annexe 3 FIFA RSTP 2009.
 For precise steps see FIFA
TMS, Global Transfer Market Report 2016,
p. 8; Supra at 4, p. 101.
 FIFA, Transfers,
Player’s status, Clubs, Agents Regulations - Archived regulations
CAS 2011/A/2354 E. v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA),
award of 24 August 2011: At
the same time, he participated in a three-year educational/trainee program at a
company in Frankfurt, which aimed “to prepare him as office clerk to apply for
a job as ‘Airport Manager’”. The German national football association, on
behalf of Muhic and Kickers Offenbach made a request to FIFA for an exception
via a special authorization for the transfer, founded on the “hardship based on
the specific circumstances of the present case, namely the move of the player
from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Germany without his parents, but with their
expressed consent, for reasons not linked to football but to benefit from a
humanitarian educational project” (p. 2.).
 Ibid, para. 17.
 Ibid, para. 18.
 Ibid, para. 18
and p. 2; Furthermore, the Panel recalled that Bosnia and Herzegovina is
neither a member of the EU nor of the EEA and, as a consequence thereof, a
player with this nationality cannot rely on the exception of Article 19(2)(b)
RSTP (para. 20). The Panel subsequently, by emphasizing that the rationale for
this exception is the “free movement of services and services suppliers within
the EU and the EEA (and other production factors)”, quickly dismissed the
appellant’s claim for the application of this provision resting on “the
Stabilization and Association Agreement signed between the EU and Bosnia and
Herzegovina” (paras. 21-23). In final, the CAS once more indicated that Article
19’s rationale was not to stop voluntary movement, yet it felt compelled to
apply the protection of minors strictly: “Opening up the door to exceptions
beyond those carefully drafted and included in the present text would
unavoidably lead to cases of circumvention of the rationale for this provision”
(para. 26). Moreover, Muhic could still continue his education, which was his
primary reason to move to Germany, and likewise train with his team. He did
have to wait a few months before becoming 18 years of age and thus eligible to
start in professional matches. Nevertheless, the Panel concluded that this
could not amount to constitute an “exceptional hardship going beyond the
general impact of the provisions on the protection of minors” (para. 27).
 Supra at 11, p. 15.
 Arbitrage TAS 2012/A/2862 FC Girondins
de Bordeaux c. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA),
sentence du 11 janvier 2013 (Vada II); Arbitrage TAS 2011/A/2494 FC Girondins
de Bordeaux c. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA),
sentence du 22 décembre 2011 (Vada I).
 TAS 2012/A/2862 (Vada II), para. 3.
 Ibid, para. 18.
 Ibid, para. 19.
 Ibid, para. 19; Bulletin TAS CAS Bulletin 2014/2, p. 29.
 Supra at 29, para. 91.
 Ibid, para. 94.
 Ibid, para. 95.
 CAS 2008/A/1485 FC Midtjylland A/S v.
Féderation Internationale de Football Association, paras. 19-21.
 Supra at 29, para. 96; Bulletin TAS CAS Bulletin 2014/2, p. 29.
 Supra at 29, para. 97.
 Ibid, paras. 98-100.
 The Guardian, 29 April 2015, “Atlético Madrid and Real deny
reports they are facing Fifa transfer embargo”.
 Arbitration CAS 2013/A/3140 A. v.
Club Atlético de Madrid SAD & Real Federación Española de Fútbol (RFEF)
& Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), award of 10
 CAS 2005/A/955 Càdiz C.F., SAD v
FIFA and Asociación Paraguaya de Fútbol and CAS 2005/A/956 Carlos Javier Acuña
Caballero v/FIFA and Asociación Paraguaya de Fútbol; CAS 2008/A/1485 FC Midtjylland A/S v. Féderation
Internationale de Football Association.
 Supra at 41, paras. 8.20-8.23.
 TAS 2011/A/2494 FC (Vada I), paras. 31-38.
 Supra at 41, paras. 8.25.
 Ibid, para. 8.30.
 Ibid, para. 8.31.
 Ibid, paras. 8.32-36.
CAS 2014/A/3611 Real Madrid FC v. Fédération Internationale de Football
Association (FIFA), award of 27 February 2015: The PSC Sub-Committee had rejected the request, which was
again founded on the “parent rule”. It did so inter alia since the player’s
parents had merely obtained a temporary residence permit that denied them the
right to work, while the submitted employment contracts “made reference to
enterprises incorporated and domiciled in Venezuela” (para. 11). This in
combination with the fact that the player had moved to Spain one month in
advance of his parents, led the PSC to believe that their move was linked to
Real Madrid’s interest in their son (paras. 12-14). The subsequent proceedings
before the CAS are only of interest in relation to the procedural aspects,
since the appeal was declared inadmissible and consequently did not address the
merits (paras. 63-66).
2014/A/3793 Fútbol Club Barcelona v. Fédération Internationale de Football
Association (FIFA), award of 24 April 2015.
TAS CAS Bulletin 2015/2, p.
76; Supra at 52, paras. 2.3-2.11.
 Supra at 50, para. 2.2.
 Supra at 51, p. 77.
 Supra at 50, paras. 9.1-9.2.
 Ibid, paras. 9.2-9.3.
 Ibid, para. 9.4.
 Ibid, para. 9.7.
 Ibid, para. 9.8.
 Ibid, para. 9.9.
 Ibid, paras. 9.10-9.12.
 Ibid, para. 9.14.
 Ibid, para. 9.18.
 Ibid, para. 9.19.
 Ibid, paras. 9.29-9.36 and 10.
 Ibid, para. 2.18.
 CAS 2014/A/3813 Real Federación
Española de Fútbol (RFEF) v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association
(FIFA), 27 November 2015.
 Coincidentally the exact same number of minors under
investigation as in the FC Barcelona
Case. Be that as it may, in the case a hand the minors transferred to various
 Bulletin TAS CAS Bulletin 2016/1. P. 66.
 Ibid, p. 63, the Panel stated “As a member of the European
Union, the Kingdom of Spain had acknowledged the application of this general
prohibition throughout Spain and no express Spanish law stating otherwise had
been brought to the Panel’s attention”.
 Supra at 73, p. 63.
 Ibid, p. 64.
 FIFA, 14 January 2016, “Atlético
de Madrid and Real Madrid sanctioned for international transfers of minors”.
 FIFA, 8 September 2016, “FIFA
rejects appeals of Atlético de Madrid and Real Madrid in relation to transfers
 The Guardian, 8 September 2016, “Real
Madrid and Atlético Madrid lose appeals against Fifa transfer ban”.
 CAS, 16 September, “Request
for stay filed by Real Madrid CF granted by the Court of Arbitration for Sport”.
 Independent, 22 September 2016, “Manchester
City could face transfer ban after being reported to Fifa for 'trafficking' of
youngster”; USA Today, 29
October 2016, “CAS
rejects US teenager’s challenge to FIFA transfer rules”.
 Supra at 11, p. 15; FIFA Circular
no. 1542, 1 June 2016.
 Art. 19(3) FIFA RSTP 2016.
 Reuters, 24
November 2016, “FIFA faces lawsuit over
rules banning transfer of minors”.