CAS 2020 A 7025
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 1 Jun 2021
Why it matters
This case clarifies the strict interpretation of Article 18bis RSTP, holding that a breach occurs as soon as a contract grants a third party the potential to influence a club's independence, regardless of whether influence is actually exercised. It reinforces FIFA's ban on third-party ownership and influence, setting a low threshold for finding a violation and emphasizing the importance of transparency in TMS declarations.
Summary
Futebol Clube do Porto (Porto) appealed a FIFA Disciplinary Committee decision finding it violated Article 18bis and Article 4(2) of Annex 3 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). The case arose from an Economic Rights Participation Agreement (ERPA) between Porto and Doyen Sports Investment Limited regarding player Yacine Brahimi. Under the ERPA, Doyen acquired 80% of Brahimi's economic rights for EUR 5 million. Porto later repurchased portions, eventually owning 100% by 2018. The ERPA contained clauses requiring Porto to inform Doyen of transfer offers, negotiate in good faith, and potentially pay Doyen if Porto rejected an offer above a threshold. Porto declared in FIFA's Transfer Matching System (TMS) that no third party would receive payments, but later uploaded the ERPA. FIFA's Disciplinary Committee found Porto liable for enabling Doyen to influence its independence and for providing incorrect TMS data, imposing a CHF 50,000 fine and a warning. The FIFA Appeal Committee confirmed. Porto appealed to CAS, arguing that the ERPA was a legitimate financing tool and that FIFA had changed its interpretation of Article 18bis. The CAS Panel dismissed the appeal, holding that Article 18bis prohibits any agreement that gives a third party the ability to influence a club's independence in transfer or employment matters, even if influence is not exercised. The Panel found that clauses 10 and 9.1 of the ERPA, which required Porto to inform Doyen of offers and use best efforts to extend Brahimi's contract, gave Doyen such influence. The Panel also found a violation of Article 4(2) of Annex 3 for failing to declare third-party influence in TMS, though it noted Porto did not conceal the agreement. The Panel upheld the CHF 50,000 fine as proportionate, noting the fine was less than 1% of the ERPA's value and within FIFA's discretion. The decision reinforces FIFA's strict stance against third-party influence and the importance of accurate TMS declarations.
The detail
Parties: Futebol Clube du Porto v. FIFA (Brahimi)
Case number: CAS 2020 A 7025
Outcome: Porto's appeal dismissed; FIFA Disciplinary Committee's decision confirmed: Porto fined CHF 50,000 and warned for violating Article 18bis and Article 4(2) of Annex 3 RSTP.
Quantum: CHF 50,000
Applicable law: FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) 2012 edition, Articles 18bis and 4(2) of Annex 3; FIFA Disciplinary Code 2019
Issues in play: The prohibition on third-party influence (Article 18bis RSTP) versus the club's freedom to enter into financing agreements. The key issue was whether an economic rights participation agreement gave a third party the ability to influence the club's independence in transfer and employment matters.
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.