MADRID, 26 Abr. (EUROPA PRESS) –
ProLiga has challenged this Tuesday before the Higher Sports Council (CSD) the modifications of the General Regulations of the Royal Spanish Football Federation (RFEF) on the understanding that “they seriously threaten the constitutionally recognized rights of the clubs”.
The employers of non-professional football will also address the Ombudsman, Ministry of Labor, National Commission for Markets and Competition, as well as the different Parliamentary Groups because they consider that the RFEF “assumes powers and purposes that it does not have recognized to under the current Sports Law”.
ProLiga understands that the various modifications to the General Regulations of the RFEF “would clash with constitutionally recognized rights such as freedom of association and freedom of enterprise, seriously harming the rights and interests of the clubs and their ability to make economic profit,” it indicates. .
“That is why ProLiga, which represents more than 240 entities, has challenged this modification of the General Regulations, understanding that it is difficult for the RFEF to establish itself as a representative of the clubs in collective negotiations, as there is a clear conflict of interest, as it is not the RFEF made up only of the clubs, but, among others, of athletes, technicians, judges, referees, etc,” he points out in a note.
“In addition, the Sports Law does not indicate among the functions of the RFEF the representation of football clubs and the defense of their interests collectively or individually. In this way it would be exceeding its functions and the RFEF could be acting as a ‘disguised’ business organization”, adds ProLiga.
In other matters, ProLiga cannot accept that, with these modifications, “it is imposed as a requirement for participation in the competition the obligation to communicate agreements, pacts, conventions or contracts of any nature entered into between clubs, excluding in this case the agreements of filiality or transfers and assignments of soccer players. Something that could go against the Organic Law of Protection of Personal Data and Guarantee of Digital Rights”.