Per la libertà di movimento, per i diritti di cittadinanza

Discrimination – TAR court accepted an appeal of a Moroccan boy who is an amateur football player

A good piece of news. We recently talked about this matter: a Moroccan boy parents appealed to TAR court because of an ongoing discrimination. The boy has been living in Italy for years on basis of family matters residence papers, he asked to be registered into the FIGC (Italian football players’ federation) list of amateur players (lower league).
This boy was denied the registration according to the new formulation of art. 27, which provides for that sportsmen are to lawfully enter Italy on basis of specific quotas. The FIGC rejected his application in spite of the fact that the boy has been regularly living in Italy for years. In fact the boy holds residence papers that allow him to study, work and live in Italian territories.
This boy was only asking to become an amateur player, this means that he is not to be paid since he is underage. The FIGC denied all this on basis of art. 27. The FIGC didn’t consider the fact that this boy holds residence papers which allow him to practice any activity such study and work, above all the FIGC didn’t consider the fact that the boy we are talking about wasn’t asking to be allowed to enter Italy to work since he is lawfully living in Italy. Immigration consolidated act art. 2 states that migrant citizens who regularly live in Italian territory have the same civil rights Italian citizens have unless Immigration consolidated act or international agreements establish something different.
This boy’s parents appealed against the denial and denounced that discrimination occurred because of their nationality. TAR in Bolzano agreed with the appeal.

This piece of news arrived few days ago, the court urgently proceeded and ordered FIGC to at least temporary register the interested boy into their amateur player list and therefore to allow him to play football. Next audience is to be March 6th and we suppose that the sentence is likely to be the same as the urgent proceeding. As we have already said this is a peculiar sort of discrimination. The most of cases do not concern this kind of discrimination, they usually are about needs that are fundamental to survive: lodgings, labour, public social services.
This case is interesting because it shows how rules on immigration management are ‘strangely and differently’ interpreted in all fields of everyday life.
Court immediately recognised that discrimination was ongoing since the federation didn’t really study the boy’s case but it simply applied a law article in the strictest and the most excluding way.