The player, as uncertain in the moment, refused to sign any contracts prematurely, which allegedly sparked a heated debate with team manager, Rainer Scerri.

As a result, Bugeja was barred from training with his peers, relegated to training with much younger players, excluded from the senior team group chat (where training schedules were posted), and ultimately benched for the winter league.

Bugeja further claimed the treatment to be “unacceptable”, stating he was being “threatened, bullied and harassed unless he signed a new contract.”

Following the complaint, the Disciplinary Commissioner issued an “Interim Decision” on 12th October, allowing Bugeja to resume training with the senior team pending an official decision.

A hearing held on 24th October, saw the attendance of Buġeja, his lawyer, club president Matthew Bonello and manager Rainer Scerri who were legally represented by Adrian Delia.

During the cross-examination conducted by Delia, the president and manager were inquired regarding the alleged treatment. Rainer Scerri informed that although Bugeja was relegated to train with younger players, the group he was assigned to included players as old as 18. Moreover, in the words of the club, “We can not have a situation where a player decides where to train and in which age group he trains.”

After thorough review, the Disciplinary Commissioner ruled that the Interim Decision would become permanent, as the player’s refusal of a premature renewal “is his right.” The decision allowed Bugeja to continue training with the senior team and access all player benefits.

Although the club was found to have exhibited “unacceptable behaviour,” it was cleared of disciplinary charges, as the treatment conducted did not breach any regulations.

Update: 

In a recent appeal opened regarding the case, the ASA Appeals Board reinstated that the club had every right to “employ strategies that align with their long-term goals,” provided that said decisions would not violate any rules or standards.

“The Club’s decision to require younger players to extend their contracts for continued participation in the senior team, while perhaps strict, is within the realm of its discretion to do so,” the ASA continued, “and does not inherently constitute any of the grounds of Forbidden Conduct, especially if consistently applied and not selectively targeted at the player.”

As the refusal of renewal was the right of Bugeja, the Club itself held the right to ask for said renewal in order for the athlete to continue participating with his preferred team.

What do you make of this case?