Today at 09:13 • Updated today at 10:51
NAC is not only fighting against relegation on the field, but also in court in Utrecht. The summary proceedings that the club has initiated against the KNVB are being processed there on Tuesday morning. NAC wants the match against Go Ahead Eagles on March 15 (6-0 defeat) to be replayed. The reason: the participation of Dean James, who was not eligible to play. “It is not about sentiment, but about a simple rule,” says lawyer Tim Wilms of NAC at the start of the case.
As an international player for Indonesia, James would have lost his Dutch citizenship and would therefore not have had a work permit. NAC reported to the KNVB that the defender of Go Ahead Eagles was not allowed to participate and wanted the result to be declared invalid. But the prosecutor of professional football decided not to punish James and pointed out the ignorance of players and clubs. NAC then decided to file summary proceedings.
The summary proceedings are due to the expected crowds live broadcast. There were no NAC supporters in the Midden-Nederland court in Utrecht on Tuesday morning. The KNVB is present with a large delegation, including director Marianne van Leeuwen. General director Remco Oversier, among others, will be present on behalf of NAC.
NAC lawyer speaks
Lawyer Tim Wilms says on behalf of NAC that the KNVB’s decision not to replay the match is contrary to the regulations. “It does not matter whether the club or player can be blamed. There are more examples where matches were replayed, such as Jong Ajax – NEC in 2018 where player Teun Bijleveld appeared to be suspended. Ajax was not to blame, but the match had to be replayed.”
NAC does not think that replaying the match in Deventer will cause ‘complete chaos’. “A snowball effect or not completing the competition are words that the KNVB uses, but that is far too premature. Doomsday scenarios are wrongly pointed to, but NAC and TOP Oss are the only ones who made a request in time (within eight days).” According to the lawyer, the question is whether other clubs will also do this in the future.
Wilms understands that NAC’s objection to replaying a match it lost 6-0 does not seem sympathetic. “But NAC must look at its position in the rankings and the consequences of relegation. All interests must be taken into account, that did not happen here.”
KNVB lawyer speaks
Lawyer Michiel van Dijk of the KNVB thinks that NAC’s request creates an untenable situation. “NAC is trying to keep it strategically small, but cannot continue to claim that it is only about one match. In the Eredivisie it involves eleven players and in the Kitchen Champion Division eight players. We are talking about 133 matches in the Eredivisie and 104 in the first division. And it now also affects the Women’s Eredivisie.”
If the match has to be replayed, according to Van Dijk, there are more clubs that will follow NAC’s example. “The competitions are in a final phase and the program is already overloaded. The World Cup is just around the corner and the new season starts relatively soon. Extension is not possible, the competitions cannot then be completed. Moreover, this causes a huge dent in the integrity and appearance.”
KNVB director Marianne van Leeuwen believes that this passport gate cannot be compared with previous cases in which a player was not eligible to play. “This situation is very different. The problem is much broader than just an individual case, but a whole series.”
Ignorance
According to the KNVB, there was ignorance among clubs and players that professionals lose their Dutch nationality if they play football for another country. The judge confronts the association that there was an article about this in the weekly magazine at the beginning of 2025 Football International. Van Dijk: “But NAC didn’t know it itself, only heard it through a podcast (De Derde Helft). So the fact that everyone could have known is an argument that falls away.”
Janouk Kloosterboer on behalf of the NAC Supervisory Board is disappointed in the football association. “The KNVB is always at the forefront of compliance with the rules or reprimand if they are not complied with. Not here.”
