CAS 2020 A 6873
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 1 Jun 2021
Why it matters
This award clarifies the strict criteria for establishing sporting succession in football. The Panel emphasized that a new club cannot be held liable for an old club's debts based solely on shared name, colours, or stadium. It requires proof that the new club was set up to continue the old club's activities, acquired its rights, or was treated as successor by the federation. This protects new clubs from inheriting debts without clear legal basis.
Summary
Benjamin van den Broek, a Dutch footballer, played for FC Universitatea Cluj (Old Club) in 2015-2016 but was not paid. He obtained a FIFA DRC decision ordering the Old Club to pay EUR 25,850. The Old Club entered bankruptcy, and van den Broek initially failed to register as a creditor. Later, he discovered a new club also named FC Universitatea Cluj (New Club) playing in lower divisions. He argued the New Club was the sporting successor of the Old Club and should pay the debt. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee agreed it was the sporting successor but dismissed charges because van den Broek lacked diligence in the bankruptcy. Van den Broek appealed to CAS. The CAS Panel examined the sporting succession test: whether the New Club was set up to continue the Old Club's activities, acquired its assets or licence, or was treated as successor by the federation. The Panel found no evidence of asset transfer, no contractual link, and the RFF did not treat the New Club as successor. The New Club started in a lower division and obtained its name and logo from the municipality, not from the Old Club. The Panel held that sporting succession requires more than appearances; it must be applied restrictively. Since the New Club was not the sporting successor, it was not liable for the debt. The appeal was dismissed.
The detail
Parties: Benjamin van den Broek v. FIFA & FC Universitatea Cluj
Case number: CAS 2020 A 6873
Outcome: Appeal dismissed. The New Club is not the sporting successor of the Old Club and is not liable for the debt.
Applicable law: FIFA Disciplinary Code (2019 edition), CAS jurisprudence on sporting succession, Swiss Civil Code
Issues in play: The concept of sporting succession under FIFA regulations versus the need for clear evidence of asset transfer or assumption of liabilities. The Panel applied a restrictive test requiring more than mere appearance of continuity.
Read the full decision at Court of Arbitration for Sport (football, via FIFA) ↗
Locus Standi links to the source decision and publishes its own plain-language summary. It does not reproduce the text of the award.