Skip to content
Five urgent answers to understand the latest in the Byron Castillo Case

Five urgent answers to understand the latest in the Byron Castillo Case

Five urgent answers to understand the latest in the Byron Castillo Case

In case of Byron Castillo It has been extended since May and, after two months of much controversy, nothing has yet been resolved. In fact, it is almost impossible for there to be an immediate and definitive end. Although it is true the FIFA will give his verdict this week, it will not end there. Whatever the decision of the organization, it can be appealed by any of the two Federations mainly involved, those of Chile and Ecuador. However, there will already be a first formal response to the claim made by ‘La Roja’ and that is very important, due to the repercussions it could have in South America. In this note we leave five urgent answers about the case of the 23-year-old Ecuadorian soccer player, who is accused of having Colombian nationality.

1. When will the ruling be known?

In principle, FIFA had informed that it was going to announce the ruling of the Byron Castillo Case on Tuesday, June 14; However, the governing body of soccer advanced the date and will now give its verdict this Friday June 10without a defined schedule, although it will most likely be in the morning hours.

2. What did Chile present in the last hours as evidence?

Just a few days after the FIFA ruling was known, the lawyer Eduardo Carlezzo, representative of the Chilean Football Federation (ANFP), exhibited new evidence on the complaint against the Ecuadorian team by the player Byron Castillo for alleged falsehood of nationality at a press conference held in Santiago.

The Brazilian lawyer exhibited, before the media, a certificate of baptism of Castillo, a ceremony that would have been held in the Colombian town of Tumaco, in the southern department of Nariño, bordering Ecuador.

According to Carlezzo, the latter and other tests would confirm that the 23-year-old soccer player is Colombian and not Ecuadorian, and that his participation in the Ecuadorian team during the South American qualifiers would be flawed.

“This document is very important to me. That birth certificate of Byron in Colombia is dated November 25, 1996, is recognized and validated by the church on June 1, 2022 “Carlezzo noted at the conference.

It is worth mentioning that the Brazilian lawyer has already argued that Castillo’s Ecuadorian birth certificate is false. He explained that the footballer “was born on July 25, 1998 in Colombia”but is using a birth certificate “of November 10 in Ecuador”. In this context, if Chile’s complaint is dismissed by FIFA, the ANFP will appeal to the same body and, if the result is still negative, it will resort to the CAS, as confirmed by Carlezzo.

3. How does the possible subtraction of points or disqualification of Ecuador affect Peru?

Chile’s intention is that, with FIFA’s ruling, Ecuador is left out of the World Cup in order to take its place. In that sense, the scenario that ‘La Roja’ expects with the verdict is that ‘La Tri’ loses the points of the games in which Byron Castillo played.

In this scenario, the Chilean team would receive five valuable points from the matches against the Ecuadorians, which would allow them to reach fourth place with 24 points, the same as Peru, but with a better goal difference, thanks to the two victories that would give them 3-0 (WO). If this happens, the “Blanquirroja” would have nothing to worry about, as it would remain in fifth position and would still face Australia in the playoffs.

Now, the possibility that FIFA will leave Ecuador out of the Qatar 2022 World Cup due to this controversial case is also being considered. In that sense, Peru would take fourth place and qualify directly for the World Cup, while Colombia would climb to fifth place and access the playoffs. This would be decided just three days before the play-off against Australia, so it is unlikely.

Among other scenarios, such as the exclusion of Ecuador from future tournaments, or the sole exclusion of the player Byron Castillo and more, the Peruvian team would not be affected in any way.

4. What is the Peruvian position in the case?

At the beginning of this controversy, FIFA invited the Peruvian Football Federation to present its position on the Byron Castillo case. “They involve Peru because what is at stake is sporting integrity, which is what FIFA proclaims at every moment”explained to this newspaper Jhonny Baldovino, who is a judge in the soccer court of the highest body.

In this context, El Comercio learned two months ago that the FPF had not planned to take any position that could affect the investigation. Although the case is being followed by the legal department of the Peruvian national team, the greatest focus has been on the World Cup repechage that will be played this June 13 against Australia.

5. What background is there?

A very similar case occurred in the Qualifiers for Russia 2018. Nelson Cabrera, a Paraguayan soccer player who became a Bolivian national to play for the “Green”, was also the protagonist in the same way as Byron Castillo.

It so happens that Cabrera was recognized as a Bolivian citizen after having lived in the highland nation for three years. However, FIFA establishes in its regulations that a soccer player can play for a team other than the country in which he was born, as long as he has accumulated five years of residence, which was not fulfilled.

In 2016 something similar happened with the Bolivian Nelson Cabrera |  Photo: Agencies

After that, Chile filed its respective complaint with FIFA and later Peru joined the claim. The decision of the governing body in this case was the withdrawal of points from Bolivia, which had tied 0-0 with Chile in Santiago and had beaten Peru 2-0 in La Paz. Both matches were recorded as 3-0 ‘Green’ defeats based on FIFA regulations. Two fines of 6,000 Swiss francs were also imposed on the FBF.

Thanks to that resolution, the ‘Blanquirroja’ managed to get back into the fight for qualification for the World Cup, reaching the playoff spot at the end of the Qualifiers. For its part, ‘La Roja’ was left empty-handed due to goal difference (6th) and, had they not made this claim, they could have been present at Russia 2018. Without a doubt, the ruling favored Peru more than to Chile.

Source: Elcomercio

Share this article:
globalhappenings news.jpg
most popular