CAS 2020 A 7154
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 1 Jun 2021
Why it matters
This case clarifies the strict application of the two-year limitation period under Article 25(5) RSTP in sporting succession disputes. It establishes that the limitation period runs from the objective event giving rise to the dispute (e.g., the establishment of a new club) rather than from the creditor's subjective knowledge. The decision reinforces legal certainty and finality, even where a player has diligently pursued claims against an insolvent club and later discovers a potential successor.
Summary
The case concerns a Nigerian player, Ikechukwu John Kingsley Ibeh, who played for PAE Aris Thessaloniki FC (PAE) under a contract from August 2013 to June 2015. In December 2013, the player terminated the contract due to PAE's non-payment of salaries. He filed a claim with the FIFA DRC against PAE. However, PAE was relegated and dissolved in 2014. The player then pursued appeals at CAS, which in 2018 confirmed PAE's debt but noted that PAE was in liquidation. The CAS award suggested the player could bring a new claim against any sporting successor. In July 2018, the Hellenic Football Federation informed the player that a new entity, ARIS FC (ARIS), had been formed in August 2016 and was competing professionally. The player filed a claim against ARIS in October 2018, arguing ARIS was the sporting successor of PAE. The FIFA DRC agreed, ordering ARIS to pay the player EUR 214,000 plus interest. ARIS appealed to CAS, arguing the claim was time-barred under Article 25(5) RSTP, which bars claims filed more than two years after the event giving rise to the dispute. The CAS Panel (majority) agreed with ARIS. It held that the 'event giving rise to the dispute' was the establishment of ARIS in August 2016, not the player's knowledge of it. Since the player filed his claim in October 2018, more than two years had passed. The Panel emphasized that the limitation period is objective and not dependent on the creditor's awareness. The Panel also rejected arguments that the limitation period was suspended by prior proceedings against PAE, as ARIS was not a party to those. Consequently, the appeal was upheld, the FIFA DRC decision set aside, and the player's claim dismissed as time-barred. The Panel ordered FIFA to bear the arbitration costs and pay CHF 3,000 towards ARIS's legal fees, noting that FIFA had incorrectly decided the claim was admissible.
The detail
Parties: Aris FC v. Ikechukwu John Kingsley Ibeh & FIFA
Case number: CAS 2020 A 7154
Outcome: Appeal upheld; FIFA DRC decision set aside; Player's claim against ARIS FC time-barred; FIFA ordered to bear arbitration costs and pay CHF 3,000 towards ARIS FC's legal fees.
Applicable law: FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), specifically Article 25(5); Swiss Code of Obligations (subsidiarily); CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration.
Issues in play: The two-year limitation period under Article 25(5) RSTP versus the player's argument that the limitation period should start from when he learned of the potential successor club. The Panel held that the limitation period runs from the objective event (the establishment of the new club) and not from the creditor's knowledge.
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.