The Professional Committee issues its decision regarding Al-Nasr’s complaint against “Fahd bin Nafel” and “Fahd Al-Mufarrej” in the “Kino” case

Al-Marsad Sports: The Professionalism and Players’ Status Committee issued its decision regarding Al-Nasr Club’s complaint once morest Al-Hilal Club, its president and CEO, regarding the player’s incitement, Mohamed Kno, to terminate his contract with Al-Nasr Club.

The Professional Committee rejected Al-Nasr Club’s complaint once morest Al-Hilal due to the precedent of imposing a penalty of banning registration on Al-Hilal Club by the Dispute Resolution Chamber and for not providing evidence of incitement.

The Professional Committee clarified that the burden of proof in sports penalties is on the new club signed with the player (Al-Hilal Club), while the burden of proof in disciplinary penalties is on the plaintiff of the violation (Al-Nasr Club), and it must be proven by means of proof in accordance with what is required by the general rule.

She pointed out that Al-Nasr Club’s inference of the Chamber’s decision to incite the president and CEO of Al-Hilal Club is not correct. The difference in the burden of proof between sports and disciplinary sanctions.

Leave a Replay