CAS 2023/A/10043 Yeni Mersin Idman Yurdu A.S. vs Ivan Saraiva de Souza & FIFA
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 28 May 2025
Why it matters
This award clarifies the interplay between limitation periods and sporting succession in FIFA disciplinary proceedings. The CAS panel held that a claim against a successor club is time-barred if filed more than five years after the final decision against the original debtor club, even if the successor was not yet identified. It underscores that the limitation period runs from the notification of the original decision, not from the succession assessment.
Summary
The case concerns a dispute over sporting succession and limitation periods in FIFA disciplinary proceedings. The player, Ivan Saraiva de Souza, had obtained a DRC decision in 2015 against his former club YM1 for unpaid compensation. YM1 failed to pay, and the FIFA Disciplinary Committee (DISCO) imposed sanctions. In 2023, the player filed a new complaint against YM2, alleging it was the sporting successor to YM1. The FIFA DISCO agreed and ordered YM2 to pay the debt. YM2 appealed to CAS, arguing it was not the successor and that the claim was time-barred. The CAS panel focused on the limitation issue under FDC Article 10. It found that the 5-year limitation period started running from the notification of the original DRC decision (8 February 2016) and was interrupted by the first DISCO decision (notified 28 February 2018). The player's new complaint on 1 August 2023 was more than five years after that interruption, so the claim was time-barred. The panel set aside the appealed decision without reaching the merits of sporting succession. The award emphasizes that the limitation period applies to claims against successor clubs and cannot be circumvented by later identification of the successor.
The detail
Parties: CAS 2023/A/10043 Yeni Mersin Idman Yurdu A.S. vs Ivan Saraiva de Souza & FIFA
Outcome: Appeal upheld; FIFA Disciplinary Committee decision set aside; claim time-barred.
Applicable law: FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC) Articles 10, 21; FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) Article 25; CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration
Issues in play: Limitation period under FDC Article 10 vs. sporting succession under FDC Article 21(4). The key issue was whether the player's claim against the alleged successor club was filed within the 5-year limitation period from the final and binding decision against the original club.
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.