MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390728482 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v17n1p27

A Critical Review of the FIFA’s Release of the Football Players from Ukraine under Annex 7 to Regulations on Status and Transfer of Players

2024· review· en· W4390728482 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ammar Alrefaei

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSports Analytics and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFootballUkrainianBusinessSports economicsFootball playersPolitical sciencePublic relationsLawLeague

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, FIFA has issued several regulations addressing the new reality for Ukrainian football. One of those regulations, known as Annex 7 to the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) 2022, suspended the contracts of foreign players and coaches with Ukrainian clubs. A measure to protect the players, Annex 7 nevertheless was created and delivered without prior consulting with the Ukrainian Association of Football (UAF) or its clubs. This paper takes a socio-legal approach to critically review Annex 7 through the lens of the existing regulations and applicable laws while also considering such important sports objectives as fairness, competitiveness, and contractual stability. The paper concludes that with Annex 7, FIFA failed to recognize the needs of UAF-affiliated clubs, increased uncertainty, and could have created an undesirable precedent for future conflicts with European football clubs. Several recommendations concerning Annex 7 specifically and the regulatory procedures for FIFA, in general, are made to address these issues.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicSports Analytics and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207