CAS 2021 A 7914
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 7 Nov 2022
Why it matters
This CAS award is significant for clarifying the jurisdictional interplay between FIFA's internal bodies and the CAS, particularly in cases involving "sporting succession" and the enforcement of prior CAS awards. It underscores that an arbitration clause in an employment contract can effectively oust FIFA's first-instance jurisdiction. The decision also provides important guidance on the application of *res judicata* and *lis pendens* in sports arbitration, distinguishing between different legal entities (original club owner vs. successor) and the nature of claims (contractual breach vs. enforcement/sporting succession). It reinforces the principle that parties' contractual choices regarding dispute resolution are paramount.
Summary
Mr. César Domingo Mendiondo López, a Spanish football coach, had an employment contract with Hapoel Tel Aviv FC, which was then managed by Harel Holdings Ltd. In 2015, Harel Holdings terminated the contract. Mendiondo López successfully brought a claim before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in 2016 (CAS 2015/O/4261), which ordered Harel Holdings to pay him EUR 1,991,629.63 plus interest. Harel Holdings subsequently entered insolvency proceedings in Israel and failed to pay the award. Mendiondo López then sought to enforce this award against the "new" Hapoel Tel Aviv FC, now managed by the Nissanov Group (Poalei Tel Aviv Holdings Ltd), arguing it was the "sporting successor" of Harel Holdings. He first approached FIFA's Disciplinary Committee (DC) in October 2020, which declined to intervene, citing that the original CAS proceedings began before the relevant FIFA Disciplinary Code (2019 edition) came into force, which would have allowed enforcement of CAS ordinary awards. Mendiondo López then filed a claim with FIFA's Players' Status Committee (PSC) in September 2020, requesting it to declare the Nissanov Group's Hapoel Tel Aviv FC as the sporting successor and liable for the debt. FIFA's PSC also declined jurisdiction in April 2021. Mendiondo López appealed this PSC decision to the CAS (CAS 2021/A/7914). The First Respondent (Hapoel Tel Aviv FC/Nissanov Group) and Second Respondent (FIFA) argued that the CAS should dismiss the appeal based on *res judicata* (the matter was already decided by the prior CAS award or FIFA DC decision) and *lis pendens* (due to ongoing insolvency proceedings and other CAS appeals). The Sole Arbitrator at CAS rejected the *res judicata* plea, finding that the parties and the subject matter of the current dispute were not identical to the previous CAS award (which was against Harel Holdings, not Poalei Tel Aviv Holdings Ltd, and concerned contractual breach, not sporting succession/enforcement). The FIFA DC's decision was also not on the merits, so *res judicata* did not apply. The *lis pendens* plea was also rejected due to a lack of identity of parties and subject matter with other proceedings. However, the CAS ultimately found that the PSC lacked competence to adjudicate Mendiondo López's claim. The original employment contract between Mendiondo López and Harel Holdings contained an arbitration clause (Article 8) that explicitly referred all disputes arising from the contract to the CAS, thereby ousting the first-instance jurisdiction of FIFA's adjudicatory bodies for employment-related disputes. The Sole Arbitrator reasoned that the claim, even if framed as "sporting succession," was fundamentally "employment-related" as it stemmed from the original employment contract. Since the sporting successor "steps into the procedural shoes" of the original debtor, the arbitration clause in the original contract extended to the successor. Therefore, the CAS dismissed Mendiondo López's appeal and upheld FIFA's decision that the PSC was not competent. The Appellant was ordered to bear the costs of the arbitration.
The detail
Parties: Mendiondo López v. Hapoel Tel Aviv & FIFA
Case number: CAS 2021 A 7914
Outcome: The appeal filed by Mr. César Domingo Mendiondo López against the FIFA decision dated 7 April 2021 is dismissed, and the FIFA Decision is upheld. The Appellant is ordered to bear the costs of the arbitration.
Applicable law: FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC), FIFA Statutes, CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration (R47, R49, R58, R64), Swiss law (including Swiss Private International Law Act and Swiss Federal Tribunal jurisprudence), and the arbitration clause (Article 8) of the original employment contract.
Issues in play: The central legal questions revolved around the competence of FIFA's Players' Status Committee (PSC) to hear a claim of "sporting succession" against a club for a debt subject to a prior CAS award. Key principles included the applicability of *res judicata* and *lis pendens* to FIFA and CAS decisions, and the interpretation of FIFA regulations concerning enforcement and sporting succession. Crucially, the case examined whether an arbitration clause in the original employment contract, which referred disputes to CAS, ousted FIFA's first-instance jurisdiction.
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.