Court puts angry soccer dad out of action

Court puts angry soccer dad out of action

Recently, the Central Netherlands District Court did ruling (ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2024:6053) in a remarkable case, resulting in a hat trick for an amateur soccer club. The club announced its new team roster June 2024. Not everyone was happy about it. An eight-year-old boy was in fact placed in a lower team than his father had hoped. The father was so angry that he decided to kick his son's soccer club out. subpoena. Lawyer Conner Canters discusses the remarkable case.

Discrimination in team assignment

According to the father, his son was placed on a lower team because of his “origin, philosophy of life and race”. After talks between the angry father and the soccer club came to nothing, the soccer club received a summons letter from the angry father. In the letter, the father demands that the eight-year-old son still be placed in the higher soccer team. In addition, the man demands that the club apologize. In addition, he demands financial compensation. If the demands were not met, he would receive a summary proceedings starting. And so it happened.

Claim and defense

The angry father claimed in summary proceedings that the soccer club was ordered to:

1. payment of €12,000 to compensation,
2. payment of a penalty of €1,000 for each day or part of the day that the son would not be placed in the higher team and no apology would be made, and
3. payment of the legal costs.

The sports club's defenses include that there is no discrimination and unlawful conduct by the club. The son was deliberately placed in the lower team. In addition, the sports club argues that urgency is lacking.

Speaking of a foul by the soccer club?

The cantonal court first and foremost states in its ruling that the children's enjoyment of play should be the starting point. Parents play an important role in this. This dispute escalated unnecessarily and is not consistent with the above principle. The escalation is attributed to the angry father. The Subdistrict Court then considered that in summary proceedings it must be assessed whether the parties' claims have a reasonable chance of success in a possible bottom line. The subdistrict court ruled that the soccer club is entitled to freedom of policy when composing the team composition. Various factors may play a role in this. These include incidents from the previous season between the father and the board, the team captain and other parents.

Soccer dad files hopeless claims

The father's claims were all rejected. The subdistrict court even makes another reproach to the father by stating that it is (partly) his own fault that his son has been assigned to a lower team:

“Extra talented or ambitious players may be placed on a higher team, deviating from the age classification. [son] has been assigned to team 10.3 by the youth coordinator. All this is related to the actions of [the father] , in which several incidents occurred last season between the team leader, the youth coordinator, board and other parents.”

Not only that, but the father is also accused of lacking self-awareness. The subdistrict court notes in this regard:

“After [the father] complained about this, the board reaffirmed [son's] placement on team 10.03. [the father] lacks any self-insight and ignores that his actions are precisely not in [son's] best interest. The board has always tried to keep talking with [the father] and proposed to start a mediation process with the help of the KNVB. [the father] does not wish to cooperate. Moreover, the sports club has indicated that it wishes to further reassess the placement of [son] at the winter break.”

Moreover, there was no evidence that the soccer club acted in a discriminatory or unlawful manner toward the angry father and his son. All three of the father's claims were therefore dismissed. A hat trick for the soccer club!

The final whistle

The judge gave the final whistle in the case. The father's claims were dismissed. The soccer club had merely exercised its policy discretion, and there was no discrimination or wrongful conduct. The children's enjoyment of play should be the focus, and the father perhaps should have kept a closer eye on that. The court therefore rightly put the angry soccer father out of action.