CAS 2023 A 10114
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 20 May 2025
Why it matters
This award clarifies that under FIFA's disciplinary framework, the sporting continuity principle applies even after a club's insolvency and sale through national court proceedings. It confirms that a new owner who voluntarily assumes responsibility for foreign claims cannot later avoid FIFA sanctions by relying on the insolvency discharge. The decision reinforces FIFA's authority to impose transfer bans and other sanctions to enforce its decisions globally, overriding national insolvency laws.
Summary
Poalei Tel Aviv Holdings Ltd. (the Appellant) acquired the football club Hapoel Tel Aviv FC in January 2017 through Israeli insolvency proceedings. The previous owner, Harel Holdings, had incurred debts from FIFA and CAS decisions (the 'Infringed Decisions') totaling about NIS 30 million. The Appellant's purchase offer explicitly stated it would handle these 'Claims Abroad.' After acquisition, the Appellant refused to pay, arguing that the insolvency liquidation discharged the debts and that it was a new entity not liable for the predecessor's obligations. FIFA's Disciplinary Committee (FIFA DC) imposed sanctions including transfer bans for non-compliance with the Infringed Decisions. The Appellant appealed to CAS, raising several defenses: (1) the FIFA DC lacked jurisdiction because the debts were discharged in liquidation; (2) the Appellant was not the same legal entity as Harel Holdings; (3) the Appellant acted diligently and in good faith; (4) the sanctions violated double jeopardy due to prior points deduction by the IFA. The CAS Panel rejected all arguments. It held that the FIFA DC had authority under the FIFA Disciplinary Code to initiate proceedings for non-compliance with its decisions. Applying the 'sporting continuity principle,' the Panel found that the Appellant, as the new owner operating the same club in the same league, was liable for the debts because it voluntarily assumed them in its purchase offer and because the club's sporting identity continued. The Panel noted that the Appellant's conduct, accepting liability to win the bid and then refusing to pay, was not irreproachable. The double jeopardy defense failed because the IFA's points deduction was for insolvency, not for non-compliance with FIFA decisions. The Panel confirmed the FIFA DC sanctions, dismissing all six appeals. The award underscores that FIFA's disciplinary system operates independently of national insolvency laws and that clubs cannot escape financial obligations by changing ownership through insolvency proceedings.
The detail
Parties: 10117 10118 10119 10121 10122 Poalei Tel Aviv Holdings Ltd. v. FIFA
Case number: CAS 2023 A 10114
Outcome: All six appeals dismissed; FIFA Disciplinary Committee decisions confirmed.
Applicable law: FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC), CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration, Swiss law
Issues in play: The principle of sporting continuity versus the effect of national insolvency proceedings on liability for debts; whether a new owner inherits debts of the predecessor club under FIFA rules.
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.