CAS 2020 A 7026
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 1 Jun 2021
Why it matters
This case clarifies the scope of Article 18bis RSTP, establishing that a club violates the rule if it enters into an agreement that gives a third party the ability to influence its independence in transfer or employment matters, regardless of whether that influence is actually exercised. It confirms that clauses creating financial pressure or obligations to sell constitute prohibited influence, and that failure to declare such arrangements in TMS is a separate violation. The decision reinforces FIFA's strict approach to third-party ownership and influence, setting a precedent for similar cases.
Summary
Futebol Clube do Porto (Porto) appealed a FIFA decision finding it violated Article 18bis RSTP (prohibition on third-party influence) and Article 4(2) of Annex 3 RSTP (failure to declare third-party influence in TMS). Porto had entered into a Financial Economic Rights Participation Agreement (FERPA) with Doyen Sports Investments, granting Doyen 33.33% of the economic rights of player Eliaquim Mangala. The FERPA contained clauses requiring Porto to inform Doyen of transfer offers, distribute proceeds, and obligating Porto to sell the player if a certain threshold was met, or pay compensation. Porto argued the FERPA was a legitimate financing tool and did not give Doyen influence. The CAS Panel upheld FIFA's decision, finding that clauses 6, 7, 9, 10, and 15 of the FERPA gave Doyen the ability to influence Porto's independence in transfer and employment matters. For example, clause 10 created an obligation to sell unless Porto paid a substantial sum, effectively limiting its decision-making. Clause 9.1 required Porto to use best endeavors to prevent the player from becoming a free agent, interfering with employment decisions. The Panel also found Porto violated Article 4(2) of Annex 3 by falsely declaring in TMS that no third-party influence existed, though it noted Porto had disclosed the FERPA in annual reports. The Panel confirmed the fine of CHF 55,000 and warning, finding the sanction proportionate given the seriousness of the violations and the deterrent purpose.
The detail
Parties: Futebol Clube do Porto v. FIFA (Mangala)
Case number: CAS 2020 A 7026
Outcome: Porto's appeal dismissed; FIFA's decision confirmed; Porto fined CHF 55,000 and warned.
Quantum: CHF 55,000
Applicable law: FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) 2010 edition, Articles 18bis and 4(2) of Annex 3; FIFA Disciplinary Code
Issues in play: The prohibition on third-party influence (Article 18bis RSTP) versus the club's contractual freedom to enter into financial agreements with third parties.
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.