Matthew Starbuck

[Matthew Starbuck @Matt_Starbucks]

@wayofthek @ChristinaUnkel But that theroretically never materialized unless there was some FIFA rubber stamp saying “Balogun is Balo-gone”

[Matthew Starbuck @Matt_Starbucks]

@wayofthek @ChristinaUnkel But what it ultimately comes down too is *what* can be taken to sports court.

Gotta be something they have jurisdiction over. The red card alone, not appealable. The suspension imposed by the red card, better change under legal error….

[Matthew Starbuck @Matt_Starbucks]

@wayofthek @ChristinaUnkel Theoretically, there *could* have been recourse, *if* he was suspended (this is in line with CAS precedent) BUT FOP = high bar. Belgium can appeal admin decision. Admin final order = lower bar.

[Matthew Starbuck @Matt_Starbucks]

@wayofthek @ChristinaUnkel Same principle happens in courts of record here in the US. You can’t appeal to a the Supreme Court anything and everything. It’s gotta be a final appealable order, generally speaking. (Sans interlocutory relief)

[Matthew Starbuck @Matt_Starbucks]

@wayofthek @ChristinaUnkel If FIFA doesn’t allow direct appeals of red cards, then you lack an appealable action *until* some decision happens that is appealable. CAS doesn’t re-referee games. Here, an appealable action would be the notice of automatic suspension, or however those are adjudicated.

[Matthew Starbuck @Matt_Starbucks]

@wayofthek @ChristinaUnkel Sports rights are tricky. And will take a LOT of tweets. Intervening parties happen ALL the time. Look at Chile’s’ action. Other parties had appeals lodged too…same thing. Grievance is based on sports law rights. They may have standing under those.

[Matthew Starbuck @Matt_Starbucks]

@wayofthek @ChristinaUnkel In the alternative, if FIFA did suspend him for the 1, he could theoretically have a shot. But that didn’t happen here. So yes and no? It’s about what gives rise to jurisdiction.

[Matthew Starbuck @Matt_Starbucks]

@wayofthek @ChristinaUnkel To appeal against. if fifa allowed appeals…and denied it? Then you have a CAS appealable decision.

[Matthew Starbuck @Matt_Starbucks]

@wayofthek @ChristinaUnkel CAS jurisprudence.

[Matthew Starbuck @Matt_Starbucks]

@wayofthek @ChristinaUnkel So, the video usage was permissible as it *could* have been reviewed as a serious missed incident, and reviewed for serious foul play. However, the way the review was conducted (slow mo and still only) was improper. It would still likely be found a FOP decision under (1)