The Carlos Salcedo saga trudges forward today, with the player's representation now threatening an appeal to FIFA if a deal is not agreed between Major League Soccer, who Salcedo is under contract with.
That contractual state is the case after Real Salt Lake took a unilateral option on the player in December 2014, but Salcedo's representation is reportedly denying the validity of that option. Additionally, they're also denying the overall validity of MLS contracts, arguing — according to Medio Tempo — that leagues cannot enter into contracts with players under FIFA regulation.
The situation was also reported by Récord, who didn't report the MLS contract validity portion like Medio Tempo but did note that Salcedo expects FIFA will grant a provisional permit if an appeal is made. Milenio also reported on the matter, also citing the league-contract issue, and noting that Salcedo has yet to train with Chivas but has a verbal agreement, as the club wishes to avoid problems with Major League Soccer.
Medio Tempo also reported that Salcedo could end up playing for 'Bruges' (presumably Club Brugge in Bruges) in Belgium, should an agreement with Chivas not be reached for some reason.
All three outlets reported on the matter in short order, and all three had a unique element to the story, which would seem to indicate that there was some organization behind the release of the news.
FIFA does have jurisdiction in this matter, and the case would likely go to their Players' Status Committee. An appeal may be made to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. If Salcedo does expect a provisional permit, that might not come for a maximum of 60 days, if it's given at all. FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfers of Players, in Annexe 3 (Administrative Procedure Governing the Transfer of Players Between Associations), Article 2, it states that a decision of sporting sanctions would take place before an international transfer certificate (ITC) is issued.
If a deal is agreed between MLS and Chivas, one of MLS or Real Salt Lake (that part is not clear at this point) would be due training compensation as per Annexe 4, Article 2, because Salcedo would be being transferred between clubs of two different associations.
If Salcedo's appeal to FIFA is unsuccessful, meaning the MLS option year is accepted in this case, and he has already sign a contract with Chivas, it could be problematic for him and Chivas. Section IV, Article 17 of Regulations (above) sets out a four-month restriction on playing in official matches (six months in aggravating circumstances). If not proved otherwise, Chivas could also be found to have induced Salcedo to commit a breach of contract, which would lead to their being banned from registering players (nationally or internationally) for two registration periods.
Of course, if MLS and Chivas agree terms, this is all moot, and the issue is avoided. It does seem somewhat strange if Salcedo's representation is denying the validity of both the option year and the contract as a whole — one leg of the argument would seem to be al you'd need.
For a bit of background, while FIFA doesn't explicitly recognize the ability of a player to be signed to a league then assigned to a team, it does explicitly recognize collective bargaining agreements, and the CBA between MLS and the MLS Players Union does allow for players to be assigned to teams and contracted to the league.
As reported on Thursday, Salcedo's camp was rumored to, at that point, not be recognizing the player's contract option. This obviously seems a significant escalation and confirmation of those rumors.