No. 07-00-448/2024-02  date: 25.7.2025.

OPINION

The opinion was issued in proceedings following a complaint by A.A. from …, submitted on behalf of his son B.B., against football club V.V. from …. The complaint stated that his son was discriminated against in that he was prevented from playing for the club and was not paid meal allowance solely because he, as his father, criticized the municipal authorities in the local parliament where he is an opposition councilor. He believes that his son was discriminated against on the grounds of his political beliefs and membership in an opposition political organization, as an associated person. It was explained that his son had been a football player of football club V.V., and that local officials “took revenge” through the club after his appearance in the local parliament in which he criticized the municipal authorities, by “banning” his son from playing sports. It was further stated that on this occasion a television station produced a report in …, that this video is available on the internet, and that in the video it can clearly be seen that the journalist states that she called the president of football club V.V. and that the club president told her in conversation that the “removal of the complainant’s son from the club was ordered from above,” after which columns were written about the event in certain daily newspapers. In his response, the president of football club V.V. disputed the allegations from the complaint, stating that B.B. was not banned from playing for the club, but that he independently submitted a request for deregistration from the club in August 2024, that he “left the club in the lurch” precisely when it was relegated to a lower competition tier, that the allegations that he was not paid meal allowance are untrue, and that on several occasions he even received a higher allowance than other players. The response further stated that due to the fact that B.B. left the club “on his own initiative,” he lost the right to request “training compensation,” given that B.B. changed the environment and is now playing for a club in a higher competition tier. Along with the response, the club president submitted a copy of the clearance certificate, as well as financial statements regarding meal allowance payments. In the proceedings it was established that the complainant’s son, B.B., had been a member of football club V.V. since 27 July 2023, and that his father has been a councilor in the Municipal Assembly of … since January 2024, as well as that according to statements from interviews and witness testimony it is undisputed that prior to the events described in the complaint, the complainant criticized the authorities in the Municipality of …. By reviewing the clearance certificate issued by football club V.V. to B.B., it was stated that his last appearance for this club was in April 2024. Upon examination of the evidence submitted with the statement, it can be established beyond dispute that BB submitted a request for a clearance certificate in August, and that the meal allowance was paid until April 2024, while, according to the data contained in the clearance certificate, BB appeared in matches for the club. It was further established that the club subsequently played an additional 11 matches to which the complainant’s son was not invited. By reviewing the Rulebook on the Registration, Status, and Transfer of Players adopted by the Football Association of Serbia, it can be established that an amateur player, in order to transfer to another club, must possess a clearance certificate issued by his parent club. Therefore, B.B. could not have transferred to any other club unless a clearance certificate had first been issued at his request by his parent club. The fact that B.B. requested the issuance of a clearance certificate, in that sense, does not constitute evidence proving why the club did not invite B.B. from April 2024 onward to play for the club. This is also confirmed by the statements of the president of football club V.V., that B.B. was paid meal allowance until April 2024, while according to the data from the clearance certificate he was playing in matches for the club. Along with its response, the club did not submit any evidence from which it could be concluded that the reasons for not inviting B.B. were related to some injury or some other sporting reason, rather than the fact stated by the complainant. Also, along with the response no evidence was submitted that meal allowance does not belong to a player in the event that he does not play for the club, that is, evidence was not submitted prescribing in which cases meal allowance belongs to a player. In this regard, the Commissioner notes that as long as a player is registered with a certain club, he is still a member of the club and has certain rights on that basis. The right to meal allowance could depend on: specific contract terms (whether the allowance is conditioned on active engagement) and/or internal football rules if they exist, however, such acts were not submitted with the response as evidence that while B.B. was a member of the club, during the period when he did not play for the club, he was not entitled to receive meal allowance. By applying the rule on shifting the burden of proof from Article 45 of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination, the Commissioner issued an opinion that football club V.V. violated the provisions of Article 6 of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination. Football club V.V. was recommended to remedy the consequences of discriminatory conduct toward B.B. by sending a written apology to B.B. and paying the meal allowance in accordance with sports rules.

COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EQUALITY

Brankica Janković