CAS 2022 A 8805
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 16 Mar 2023
Why it matters
This case clarifies the application of Article 17(4) FIFA RSTP, confirming that the presumption of inducement can be rebutted if the new club demonstrates it could not have known of the player's prior contractual obligations. It also reaffirms that only FIFA (not other clubs) has standing to seek sporting sanctions against an indirect member, and that a settlement between clubs on compensation does not preclude the annulment of sporting sanctions where the presumption is rebutted.
Summary
The case involves a football player who signed a contract with club SD (the Second Respondent) on 4 November 2020, but then unilaterally terminated it on 11 November 2020 to accept an offer from another club, A FC (the Appellant). SD lodged a claim with the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) against the player and A FC, seeking compensation and sporting sanctions. The FIFA DRC found the player had breached the contract without just cause, ordered him to pay compensation of EUR 148,737, held A FC jointly and severally liable, and imposed sporting sanctions: a four-month playing ban on the player and a two-registration-period ban on A FC. A FC appealed to CAS, arguing it could not have known the player was under contract with SD because the player's agent said he was a free agent, Transfermarkt listed him as free, and the International Transfer Certificate showed no prior club. During the CAS proceedings, A FC and SD reached a settlement on the compensation (horizontal dispute), which they asked the CAS panel to ratify. FIFA (the First Respondent) agreed that A FC could not have known of the prior contract and therefore no sporting sanctions should be imposed. The Second Respondent (SD) objected, arguing sanctions were appropriate. The CAS panel ratified the settlement agreement, noting it was bona fide and not contrary to public policy. On the remaining vertical dispute (sporting sanctions), the panel applied CAS jurisprudence holding that only FIFA has standing to impose sporting sanctions on its indirect members; a club like SD cannot seek sanctions against another club. Since FIFA accepted that the presumption of inducement under Article 17(4) was rebutted, the panel annulled the sporting sanction against A FC. The panel also ordered A FC to bear the arbitration costs because its failure to participate in the FIFA DRC proceedings necessitated the appeal.
The detail
Parties: SD v. FIFA & A FC
Case number: CAS 2022 A 8805
Outcome: The settlement between SD and A FC was ratified; the sporting sanction (registration ban) against SD was annulled; SD bears arbitration costs.
Applicable law: FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (2021 edition), Article 17(4); CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration
Issues in play: Whether a club that signs a player who had unilaterally terminated a prior contract without just cause can be presumed to have induced the breach, and whether that presumption can be rebutted by showing the club could not have known of the prior contract.
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.