Football: Players Union takes the South African Football Association to the High Court claiming Denial of Justice
By Razia Mahomed, School of Law, UNISA, Pretoria, South Africa
South African association football is facing a critical test of governance and players’ rights after the South African Football Players Union (SAFPU) initiated High Court proceedings against the South African Football Association (SAFA).
The litigation, publicly reported by the international football players’ federation, FIFPRO Africa, has accused the national football governing body of a “deliberate and unlawful denial of justice” to professional footballers whose employment disputes have languished unresolved for years.
According to SAFPU, at least eleven players remain trapped in legal limbo because SAFA has failed to process their appeals before its Arbitration Tribunal. These cases originate from the National Soccer League Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC), the statutory forum mandated to adjudicate employment-related disputes between players and clubs. Under the SAFA rules, parties dissatisfied with an NDRC decision may appeal to the SAFA Arbitration Tribunal. However, the players union claims that SAFA has simply not convened these hearings - in some cases since 2019 – effectively blocking their access to justice.
A Decade-Old Problem Comes to a Head
For SAFPU, the tipping point has been the apparent breakdown of the SAFA internal dispute-resolution structures. According to Nhlanhla Shabalala, the SAFPU Secretary-General :
“The right to a fair hearing is not optional.”
And added:
“Our members have been denied justice, not by their clubs, but by the very body that should safeguard their rights.”
One example involves the players Luke Baartman and Asanele Velebayi, formerly of Cape Town Spurs. When the club was relegated, the NDRC ruled that the two were free agents and entitled to sign elsewhere; a decision that both players acted upon when joining Kaizer Chiefs. Yet, because the club appealed and SAFA never heard the matter, the NDRC award remains suspended. The result, of course, is uncertainty over their registration, which raises potential contractual complications for their new club.
Constitutional Rights and Contractual Obligations
At the heart of the SAFPU legal argument is the constitutional right to fair administrative action. By failing to appoint arbitrators or progress their appeals, SAFA, the union argues, has infringed players’ rights to a lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair process. The High Court application seeks declaratory relief compelling SAFA to fulfil its statutory and contractual duties, effectively forcing the Federation to re-activate its arbitration machinery.
Beyond constitutional law, the dispute also raises important labour law questions. SAFPU contends that SAFA has breached the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) governing professional football, particularly clauses that require the joint appointment of arbitrators and recognition of the union as the players’ official representative. By unilaterally appointing arbitrators or refusing to recognise SAFPU in decision-making, the union contends that SAFA has undermined the principle of collective representation, a cornerstone of workplace justice, even in professional sport.
Governance and Accountability in South African Football
For observers of South African sport, this is not an isolated governance problem. SAFA has faced a string of recent controversies, including allegations from clubs in the Sasol Women’s League that it disregarded Court rulings. Critics argue that such patterns reveal a deeper institutional failure, namely, a lack of procedural integrity and accountability in football’s governing structures.
The consequences extend beyond bureaucratic delay. When disputes drag on for years, players’ livelihoods are directly affected, contracts lapse, registrations stall, and careers can be derailed. Denial of justice in this context is not rhetorical, it translates into lost income, diminished career prospects, and psychological strain on players, who often lack the financial means to pursue ordinary Court remedies.
A Global Lens on Local Justice
The SAFPU case also resonates internationally. FIFPRO Africa, which represents professional footballers’ unions across the continent, has thrown its support behind the litigation. In a statement, FIFPRO remarked that the case highlights “a worrying erosion of players’ access to justice in domestic football systems” and urged SAFA to “uphold its obligations under FIFA statutes and international labour standards.”
Globally, FIFA Regulations require member associations to maintain independent dispute-resolution bodies that operate with transparency, impartiality, and within reasonable timeframes. Should the High Court find SAFA in breach of these obligations, it could trigger intervention or sanctions under the global football governance legal framework.
Legal and Sporting Implications
Legally, the High Court ruling could clarify the extent to which national sports governing bodies are legally bound by constitutional standards of administrative fairness, an area where South African jurisprudence remains evolving. The outcome may also set a legal precedent for how domestic Courts balance the principle of autonomy of sport with the constitutional right to judicial review.
Sports governance experts note that the South African Courts have historically been cautious about interfering in the internal affairs of sports associations. Yet, as SAFPU Secretary-General Nhlanhla Shabalala points out: “autonomy cannot mean impunity.”
If the Curt orders SAFA to reform or expedite its arbitration processes, it could strengthen oversight mechanisms across the sports sector in South Africa.
For SAFA, the case poses both legal and reputational risks. A finding of procedural failure could expose it to further litigation and erode trust amongst players, sponsors, and the public. For SAFPU, the litigation is a litmus test for the effectiveness of player representation and the enforceability of collective agreements in professional sport generally.
The Road Ahead
At present, the matter remains before the High Court, with both parties yet to issue detailed public statements on the proceedings. Regardless of the immediate outcome, the case has already ignited a broader debate about governance and fairness in South African football.
For players, it is a reminder that the fight for justice often extends beyond the pitch. For administrators, it is a wake-up call that sport cannot operate in a legal vacuum. And for the global sports law community, the SAFPU–SAFA showdown underscores an essential truth, namely, that the rule of law in sport is only as strong as the institutions entrusted to uphold it!
The Author may be contacted by e-mail at ‘
