CAS 2020 A 7008
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 1 Jun 2021
Why it matters
This award is a landmark interpretation of Article 18bis RSTP, clarifying that the mere ability to influence, not actual influence, suffices for a violation. It sets a strict standard against third-party ownership structures in football, reinforcing FIFA's ban on third-party influence (TPI) to protect club independence and transfer integrity. The case also confirms that economic rights agreements can breach the rule even if they include a clause acknowledging the club's independence.
Summary
Sport Lisboa e Benfica SAD (Benfica) entered into two Economic Rights Participation Agreements (ERPAs) with Meriton Capital Limited, a company owned by businessman Peter Lim. Under the ERPAs, Meriton paid Benfica €15 million for 100% of the economic rights to player André Gomes and €30 million for 100% of the economic rights to player Rodrigo Moreno Machado. The agreements gave Meriton rights to receive transfer offers, approve or reject transfers, and receive payments from transfers. Benfica also had to provide Meriton with information and documents. In 2015, both players were transferred to Valencia CF, also owned by Peter Lim, for amounts equal to Meriton's grant fees. FIFA's Disciplinary Committee found that the ERPAs violated Article 18bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), which prohibits clubs from allowing third parties to acquire the ability to influence their independence in employment and transfer matters. Benfica was fined CHF 75,000 and warned in each case. Benfica appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the ERPAs did not give Meriton actual influence and that the clauses were standard for economic rights agreements. The CAS Panel upheld FIFA's decisions, ruling that Article 18bis prohibits any contractual arrangement that gives a third party the ability to influence a club's decisions, regardless of whether that influence is actually exercised. The Panel found that the ERPAs gave Meriton significant control over transfer decisions, including the right to reject offers and receive compensation if Benfica proceeded against its wishes, and that the financial structure effectively compelled Benfica to follow Meriton's preferences. The Panel also rejected Benfica's argument that the clause acknowledging Meriton's recognition of Benfica's independence negated the violation. The sanctions were deemed proportionate given Benfica's prior violations and the need to deter third-party influence. The award confirms that economic rights agreements structured to give third parties control over transfers breach FIFA's rules, even if they include formal disclaimers of influence.
The detail
Parties: & 7009 Lisboa e Benfica SAD v. FIFA
Case number: CAS 2020 A 7008
Outcome: Benfica's appeal dismissed; FIFA's decisions confirmed: Benfica fined CHF 75,000 and warned for violating Article 18bis RSTP.
Quantum: CHF 75,000
Applicable law: FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), Article 18bis; FIFA Disciplinary Code; CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration
Issues in play: Article 18bis RSTP prohibits third-party influence on clubs' independence in employment and transfer matters. The case examined whether Economic Rights Participation Agreements (ERPAs) granting a third party (Meriton) rights over players' economic rights gave Meriton the ability to influence Benfica's decisions, violating the rule.
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.