The Social Court of the National Court has rejected the request of the ON footballers union to declare the nullity of the training compensation list for the 2019-20 season that includes the Collective Agreement for players under 23 years of age, although “Must be limited to the signing subjects” of the same.
As reported by the National Court, the Chamber considers that, at the date of the trial, held last week, the Agreement had not been published in the BOE and therefore does not meet the validity requirements of Article 90 of the Workers' Statute. In order to be considered a statutory agreement, its effectiveness and that of the compensation list, “must be limited to the signing parties”.
The resolution discards the main claim of FutbolistasON to cancel the list, as stated in article 20 of the First Collective Agreement of Professional Women's Soccer, understanding that “it was presented to the Joint Commission on time and that the action, being of a nature collective, prevents entering to ponder the unique circumstances regarding each of the players.
This issue, he points out, “should be aired in claims for individual proceedings over which the Chamber lacks jurisdiction.”
The judgment also dismisses the plaintiffs' third argument and states that “it cannot be deduced from the wording of the agreement that the setting of the amount of compensation for training must be agreed between the clubs of origin and the players included in the compensation list” .
The Court does consider the subsidiary request of FutbolistasON to declare the extra-statutory nature of the Agreement, as it was not published in the BOE, after considering that this makes it “lack one of the validity requirements demanded by Article 90 of the Statute of the Workers ”.
“Its effects would be limited exclusively to the subjects signing the pact, and could not be taken further,” he adds.
For all these reasons, the ruling agrees “to partially estimate the demand made by the On footballers union, to which Real Madrid adhered, in its subsidiary claim and to declare the extra-legal nature of the I Professional Women's Soccer Collective Agreement solely applicable footballers and clubs affiliated to the signatory unions and professional associations, condemned the co-defendants ACFF, AFE, Futbol Club Barcelona and Athletic Club de Bilbao to be and go through this statement. “
The ruling resolves the lawsuit filed by ON Soccer players against the Association of Women's Soccer Clubs (ACFF), the Association of Spanish Soccer Players (AFE), Soccer Club Barcelona and Athletic Club de Bilbao, later extended to Real Madrid (formerly Club Deportivo Heel) in relation to the so-called compensation list, the clauses that have to be paid when signing players under the age of 23 and that refer to training rights.
Therefore, ex-rojiblancas Maite Oroz, who has already appeared with the new Real Madrid, and Damaris Egurrola, who is said to have a pre-contract with Barcelona, would not in principle have to pay each of the 250,000 euros that appeared in said compensation list for his departure from Athletic.
The main request for the claim was the nullity of the compensation list for the ACFF having delivered the documentation to the Joint Commission after the deadline; because the amounts included in it had not been subject to negotiation and because some amounts were “absolutely disproportionate” in relation to training costs.
Article 20 of the Agreement signed in March establishes that after the expiration of the contract due to the expiration of the agreed time, if the footballer stipulates a new contract with another club, the latter must pay the team of origin the compensation that they have freely set in the compensation lists. .