A Richmond soccer club has been denied membership into the local governing soccer organization and will no longer be allowed to take part in BC Soccer-sanctioned events.
The Richmond Soccer Association (RSA), a governing body, denied Fusion Football Club membership in November after an allegation they were poaching players.
But this is in spite of a decision from an independent panel on Nov. 25 saying that there was no evidence of poaching.
Not only did Independent Third Party Appeal Panel member Rachel Corbett find no evidence of poaching, she criticized the procedural fairness of Richmond Soccer Association’s panel that was looking into the poaching issue.
RSA said another ruling by the ITP on Feb. 12, however, denied Fusion’s appeal of the refusal of RSA membership. The Richmond News has not been given a copy of this decision.
In a statement, RSA claimed Fusion acted in “non-compliance” with some bylaws, policies and rules of BC Soccer and RSA.
RSA stated Fusion had committed not to accept “entire teams” (defined as 50 per cent or more of a team) from other clubs. However, according to the RSA statement, Fusion registered teams in various tournaments with large numbers of players who were registered with Richmond United.
Despite this, RSA allowed Fusion to continue its associate membership for the remainder of the season so that “Fusion FC players were not negatively affected by the RSA’s decision and to provide Fusion FC with time to make alternate arrangements,” the statement from RSA reads.
This led to BC Soccer upholding RSA’s decision to deny membership to Fusion with sanctions imposed in March.
Criticism in the first ITP decision, however, was partly of the procedural fairness of how Fusion had been denied membership.
Fusion wasn’t told the identity of the RSA panel, the evidence against them nor the timelines and process, the decision reads.
“They were supplied none of these in a timely way, if at all,” Corbett wrote. “In essence, Fusion FC was afforded none of the elements of fairness outlined above.”
Corbett notes two complaints about poaching were against Richmond United coaches and it was claimed there was an investigation.
But both coaches said they weren’t made aware of an investigation.
Furthermore, the official complaints came many months later “after it became apparent that very large numbers of players had registered for spring soccer with Fusion FC,” Corbett wrote.
Richmond Soccer Association said, in its submissions to the third-party appeal panel, poaching “can be proved through evidence we have collected,” but Corbett said she didn’t see any such evidence.
“It is like I am being asked to conclude that the registration of over 150 players into Fusion FC must be evidence of poaching, rather than concluding that it is evidence of something else such as dissatisfaction with (Richmond United Football Club),” she wrote in her decision.
Corbett goes on to write there were “vague references” to two or three anonymous parents who said coaches encouraged them to register with Fusion FC.
“Even if they did come forward, I am uncertain that two or three parents being influenced to switch clubs would result in well over 100 families doing the same thing,” she added.
A final irregularity was noted by Corbett about how the complaint about poaching “morphed” into an “investigation of a Club’s suitability for permanent membership in a District Association.”
“In not understanding the assignment, which was to make a finding on poaching by two individuals and impose sanctions, the discipline panel also misunderstood the scope of their authority, and widely exceeded it,” Corbett wrote.
But the appeal process was only about the poaching, not about the membership in RSA, Corbett concluded in her decision.
Richmond Soccer Association further clarified with the News that their decision to deny active membership to Fusion was “not based on the poaching matter.”
“It was based on clear non-compliance with RSA and BC Soccer policies—particularly Fusion FC’s failure to uphold their agreement not to accept ‘entire teams’ (defined as 50%+ of a team’s registered players from another club),” the organization said in a statement.
RSA added Fusion FC “repeatedly breached this commitment by registering multiple full teams of players from a single club without disclosing this to RSA.”
When Fusion FC appealed the RSA membership denial to the Independent Third Party, that appeal was dismissed in the Feb. 12 decision, following a “thorough review of submissions from both parties,” RSA stated.
BC Soccer upholds decision to disqualify Fusion
RSA’s decision to disqualify Fusion from membership was reviewed and upheld by BC Soccer with conditions imposed in March that denied them from taking part in BC Soccer-sanctioned events.
Fusion players will be denied entry into BC Soccer recreational leagues starting this spring, and starting this fall, they will be denied entry into BC Soccer high performance leagues.
They can, however, offer non-sanctioned soccer in Richmond.
An online petition has been created asking for an “immediate review and reversal” of the decision to cancel its membership, a “transparent investigation into the decision-making process” and “proper governance procedures.”
“This sudden decision has left approximately 700 children without their soccer program and has created a significant crisis for these young athletes and their families,” the petition reads.
Fusion Football Club was formed in 2011.
In 2023, they were given an “associate membership” into RSA for a one-year trial period, ending Dec. 31, 2024. This allowed them to play in BC Soccer-sanctioned events.
** This story has been modified from the original
📣 Got an opinion on this story or any others in Richmond? Send us a letter or email your thoughts or story tips to [email protected].
📲 To stay updated on Richmond news, sign up for our daily headline newsletter.
💬 Words missing in article? Your adblocker might be preventing hyperlinked text from appearing.
