هل يُعد انسحاب الهلال من كأس السوبر السعودي قانونياً؟ ومتى تُعتبر «الظروف القاهرة» مبرراً مشروعاً؟
أثار انسحاب نادي الهلال من كأس السوبر السعودي موجة من التساؤلات سواء في الوسط الرياضي أو الإعلامي حول مشروعية القرار وتبعاته القانونية.
وهنا يجب التوضيح أن الأنظمة واللوائح في الاتحاد السعودي لكرة القدم، كما في معظم اتحادات العالم، تفرّق بين الاعتذار الطوعي وبين الانسحاب بسبب ظرف قاهر.
وفقاً للمبادئ القانونية الرياضية، فإن «الظرف القاهر» هو حدث استثنائي وخارج عن الإرادة يجعل من تنفيذ الالتزام (مثل لعب البطولة) أمراً مستحيلاً أو ضاراً بشكل كبير، وتشمل هذه الظروف:
• الكوارث الطبيعية.
• الحروب أو التهديدات الأمنية.
• الأوبئة.
• أو جدولة قاهرة تؤدي إلى أضرار صحية مثبتة على اللاعبين.
في حالة الهلال، فإن النادي أرجع قراره إلى ضغط غير مسبوق في روزنامة الموسم الماضي، حيث شارك في:
• الدوري السعودي.
• كأس الملك.
• دوري أبطال آسيا.
• كأس العالم للأندية 2025.
مع تراكم المشاركات يرى الهلال أن الاستمرار في جميع هذه المنافسات يعرّض لاعبيه للإجهاد والإصابات ويؤثر على المصلحة الفنية والصحية للفريق.
لكن!!
من الناحية القانونية لا تُعد «كثرة المشاركات» سبباً كافياً للانسحاب إلا إذا كانت هناك تقارير طبية معتمدة وتقييمات من اللجنة الفنية أو الطبية في الاتحاد تُثبت أن الاستمرار قد يُلحق ضرراً فعلياً بسلامة اللاعبين أو يخالف العدالة التنافسية.
بناءً عليه، فإن الاتحاد السعودي يملك الحق القانوني في رفض التبرير إذا لم تتوفر الأدلة، ويحق له تطبيق العقوبات المقررة في لائحة المسابقات والانضباط التي قد تشمل:
• اعتبار الفريق خاسراً.
• غرامة مالية كبيرة.
• الحرمان من المشاركة في النسخ المقبلة من البطولة.
إذن، إذا لم يُثبت الهلال وجود ظرف قاهر حقيقي بموجب الأدلة الرسمية، فإن الانسحاب يُعتبر مخالفة صريحة للوائح ويخضع للعقوبات المنصوص عليها، أما إذا ثبت وجود الضرر الفني والطبي بشهادة اللجان المختصة فقد يُعامل الأمر كـ«ظرف قاهر» يُخفّف من حدة العقوبة أو يبرّر الموقف.
هل تُدار البطولات بالمعايير.. أم بالمحاباة؟
أثار إعلان مشاركة النادي الأهلي بديلاً عن انسحاب الهلال جدلاً واسعاً، خاصة بعد حرمان القادسية من التأهل المباشر، كما تنُص عليه الأنظمة واللوائح.
المشكلة ليست في مشاركة الأهلي بحد ذاتها، بل في غياب الشفافية والوضوح في آلية تطبيق الأنظمة، لذلك كان من الأجدر بالاتحاد السعودي أن يُصدر بياناً تفصيلياً يوضح سبب الدعوة والأسباب القاهرة التي كانت خلف انسحاب الهلال من بطولة رسمية.
العدالة الرياضية لا تُبنى على التفضيلات بل على مبدأ الشفافية والعدالة، لذا فإن ما حدث مع القادسية يستحق إعادة نظر ويستدعي من الاتحاد السعودي توضيحاً رسمياً يحفظ نزاهة المنافسات ويطمئن الشارع الرياضي.
الكرة الآن في ملعب الاتحاد السعودي، إما تفسير رسمي مقنع.. أو اعتراف بأن هناك مجاملات، وأن الهلال أصبح فوق القانون، كما قال بعض المغردين!
ليلى الجابر
هدف صريح
الانسحاب الناعم يُكرّم الأهلي ويحرم القادسية
24 يوليو 2025 - 00:04
|
آخر تحديث 24 يوليو 2025 - 00:04
تابع قناة عكاظ على الواتساب
Is Al-Hilal's withdrawal from the Saudi Super Cup legal? And when are "force majeure" circumstances considered a legitimate justification?
Al-Hilal's withdrawal from the Saudi Super Cup has sparked a wave of questions in both the sports and media circles regarding the legitimacy of the decision and its legal repercussions.
It should be clarified here that the regulations and rules in the Saudi Football Federation, like in most federations around the world, differentiate between voluntary withdrawal and withdrawal due to a force majeure circumstance.
According to sports legal principles, "force majeure" is an exceptional event beyond one's control that makes fulfilling an obligation (such as participating in a tournament) impossible or significantly harmful. These circumstances include:
• Natural disasters.
• Wars or security threats.
• Epidemics.
• Or overwhelming scheduling that leads to proven health risks for the players.
In Al-Hilal's case, the club attributed its decision to unprecedented pressure in last season's schedule, where it participated in:
• The Saudi League.
• The King’s Cup.
• The AFC Champions League.
• The FIFA Club World Cup 2025.
With the accumulation of these participations, Al-Hilal believes that continuing in all these competitions exposes its players to fatigue and injuries, affecting the team's technical and health interests.
But!!
Legally, "a high number of participations" is not a sufficient reason for withdrawal unless there are certified medical reports and assessments from the technical or medical committee in the federation proving that continuing could cause actual harm to the players' safety or violate competitive fairness.
Accordingly, the Saudi Federation has the legal right to reject the justification if evidence is not provided, and it has the right to impose the penalties stipulated in the competition and disciplinary regulations, which may include:
• Considering the team as a loser.
• A significant financial fine.
• Banning participation in future editions of the tournament.
Thus, if Al-Hilal does not prove the existence of a real force majeure circumstance based on official evidence, the withdrawal is considered a clear violation of the regulations and is subject to the stipulated penalties. However, if technical and medical harm is proven with the testimony of the relevant committees, the matter may be treated as a "force majeure" that mitigates the severity of the penalty or justifies the position.
Are tournaments managed by standards... or favoritism?
The announcement of Al-Ahli's participation as a substitute for Al-Hilal's withdrawal has sparked widespread controversy, especially after Al-Qadisiyah was denied direct qualification, as stipulated by the regulations.
The issue is not Al-Ahli's participation itself, but rather the lack of transparency and clarity in the application of the regulations. Therefore, it would have been more appropriate for the Saudi Federation to issue a detailed statement explaining the reason for the invitation and the force majeure circumstances behind Al-Hilal's withdrawal from an official tournament.
Sports justice is not built on preferences but on the principles of transparency and fairness. Thus, what happened with Al-Qadisiyah deserves reconsideration and calls for an official clarification from the Saudi Federation to preserve the integrity of the competitions and reassure the sports community.
The ball is now in the Saudi Federation's court, either a convincing official explanation... or an acknowledgment that there are favors, and that Al-Hilal has become above the law, as some commentators have said!
Al-Hilal's withdrawal from the Saudi Super Cup has sparked a wave of questions in both the sports and media circles regarding the legitimacy of the decision and its legal repercussions.
It should be clarified here that the regulations and rules in the Saudi Football Federation, like in most federations around the world, differentiate between voluntary withdrawal and withdrawal due to a force majeure circumstance.
According to sports legal principles, "force majeure" is an exceptional event beyond one's control that makes fulfilling an obligation (such as participating in a tournament) impossible or significantly harmful. These circumstances include:
• Natural disasters.
• Wars or security threats.
• Epidemics.
• Or overwhelming scheduling that leads to proven health risks for the players.
In Al-Hilal's case, the club attributed its decision to unprecedented pressure in last season's schedule, where it participated in:
• The Saudi League.
• The King’s Cup.
• The AFC Champions League.
• The FIFA Club World Cup 2025.
With the accumulation of these participations, Al-Hilal believes that continuing in all these competitions exposes its players to fatigue and injuries, affecting the team's technical and health interests.
But!!
Legally, "a high number of participations" is not a sufficient reason for withdrawal unless there are certified medical reports and assessments from the technical or medical committee in the federation proving that continuing could cause actual harm to the players' safety or violate competitive fairness.
Accordingly, the Saudi Federation has the legal right to reject the justification if evidence is not provided, and it has the right to impose the penalties stipulated in the competition and disciplinary regulations, which may include:
• Considering the team as a loser.
• A significant financial fine.
• Banning participation in future editions of the tournament.
Thus, if Al-Hilal does not prove the existence of a real force majeure circumstance based on official evidence, the withdrawal is considered a clear violation of the regulations and is subject to the stipulated penalties. However, if technical and medical harm is proven with the testimony of the relevant committees, the matter may be treated as a "force majeure" that mitigates the severity of the penalty or justifies the position.
Are tournaments managed by standards... or favoritism?
The announcement of Al-Ahli's participation as a substitute for Al-Hilal's withdrawal has sparked widespread controversy, especially after Al-Qadisiyah was denied direct qualification, as stipulated by the regulations.
The issue is not Al-Ahli's participation itself, but rather the lack of transparency and clarity in the application of the regulations. Therefore, it would have been more appropriate for the Saudi Federation to issue a detailed statement explaining the reason for the invitation and the force majeure circumstances behind Al-Hilal's withdrawal from an official tournament.
Sports justice is not built on preferences but on the principles of transparency and fairness. Thus, what happened with Al-Qadisiyah deserves reconsideration and calls for an official clarification from the Saudi Federation to preserve the integrity of the competitions and reassure the sports community.
The ball is now in the Saudi Federation's court, either a convincing official explanation... or an acknowledgment that there are favors, and that Al-Hilal has become above the law, as some commentators have said!


