I submitted my official exam result review request back on June 5th, but I haven't heard anything from FIFA yet. It's been nearly 5 weeks now. Has anyone who received any response from FIFA?
Hi guys,
I submitted my official exam result review request back on June 5th, but I haven't heard anything from FIFA yet. It's been nearly 3 weeks now.
Has anyone who requested a review received their final decision or seen any changes on their FIFA Agent Platform dashboard (like the "Pay the Fee" button becoming active)?
Please share your timeline if you've got any updates. The waiting is killing me.
Thanks!
Hi everyone,
Like many of you, I’ve been reviewing the exam results and found a major flaw in Question regarding the cross-border transfer of minors (RSTP Article 19.2.c).
FIFA marked both (c) and (d) as correct. I only chose (c) and was marked incorrect because I didn't select (d). For reference, option (d) was: “The player must reside in the same house as their parents.”
I have officially submitted an appeal to the FIFA General Secretariat challenging option (d), and I wanted to share my arguments here to see if anyone else is on the same boat or has filed a similar complaint.
For your reference, the question and the official justification are as follows:
[Question 3]
Which of the following statements correctly describe the requirements for the international transfer of a minor between two neighbouring countries sharing a common border?
a. The minimum distance between the player’s domicile and the club’s headquarters is 15km.
b. The club located in the neighbouring association must be at least 60km from the common border.
c. The maximum distance between the player’s domicile and the club’s headquarters is 100km.
d. The player must reside in the same house as their parents.
[FIFA's Justification]
This exception under article 19 paragraph 2 c) of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players covers a situation in which a minor player who lives close to an international border wants to play football on one side of the border while living on the other side of it. However, the distance between the player’s home and the club’s headquarters may not exceed 100km. Furthermore, for this exception to be applicable, the minor player must continue to live at home. Stipulating that the player must live at home obviously reduces, if not eliminates, any risk of their being uprooted as a result of the transfer because the minor remains in their family environment.
Here is the core logic I sent to FIFA:
1. Black-Letter Law vs. Distractor Article 19.2(c) explicitly states that the player "must continue to live at home." It does NOT use the word "parents." As applicants, we are trained to rely strictly on the literal wording of the regulations. Narrowing "home" down to "parents" in option (d) looked exactly like a classic exam distractor/trap designed to catch people who didn't read the exact statutory text.
2. Direct Contradiction with FIFA’s Official RSTP Commentary This is the smoking gun. If you look at Section VII (Definition of the term “parents”) and Section C (Cross-border transfers) of the official FIFA RSTP Commentary, FIFA explicitly states:
"The exception applies only if the minor’s parents are not moving internationally. As with the approach taken when parents emigrate for reasons not linked to football, the player’s parents will not be deemed to be moving internationally provided the player continues to live with one of their parents and the parent concerned holds legal custody of the minor. The same applies where a player is living with a third party (a legal guardian) who has been awarded parental authority by the state, either because both the player’s parents have passed away, or because parental authority has been removed from the player’s parents."
By using the word "MUST reside... with their parents," option (d) completely excludes legally appointed guardians, grandparents, or relatives holding lawful custody—which FIFA’s own Commentary explicitly permits under this very exception. Therefore, a student living with a legal guardian satisfies the cross-border rule, making option (d) legally false and factually incorrect as an absolute requirement.
I argued that because of this clear regulatory ambiguity and contradiction with their own official study materials, option (d) should be invalidated, and credit should be awarded to those who selected (c).
Has anyone else appealed this specific question? What are your thoughts on FIFA actually accepting this based on their Commentary?