CAS 2023 A 9955
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 6 May 2024
Why it matters
This case clarifies the jurisdictional scope of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) under Article 22(1)(a) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). The CAS ruled that a dispute acquires an "international dimension" sufficient for FIFA DRC jurisdiction when a player transfers abroad and the new club potentially assumes joint and several liability for compensation. This applies even if the player and former club share nationality and the ITC issuance wasn't initially challenged. This broadens FIFA's competence in contractual stability disputes involving international transfers, ensuring claims for joint liability against new foreign clubs can be heard by FIFA's bodies.
Summary
Football Club Zenit (Russia) sought compensation from player Nikolai Solovev (Russia) for unilaterally terminating his contract without just cause, and from OFK Grbalj (Montenegro) as the new club, alleging joint and several liability. Solovev left Zenit in October 2022 and signed with OFK Grbalj in February 2023. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) initially declined jurisdiction, arguing the dispute lacked an "international dimension" because both Zenit and Solovev were Russian, and the player's transfer to OFK Grbalj was not directly linked to the contractual dispute or the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) issuance. FC Zenit appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The applicable law was Article 22(1)(a) of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), which governs FIFA's competence in employment-related disputes between clubs and players concerning contractual stability, especially when an ITC request and a related claim for compensation exist. Subsidiarily, Swiss law applied. The CAS Panel upheld FC Zenit's appeal, ruling that the FIFA DRC *does* have jurisdiction. The Panel adopted a broader interpretation of the "international dimension" requirement under Article 22(1)(a) RSTP. It determined that the international dimension is established when a player transfers abroad and signs with a new club from a different national association, thereby potentially triggering the new club's joint and several liability under Article 17(2) RSTP. The CAS emphasized that the former club's claim for compensation against the new foreign club creates this international dimension, irrespective of the player's nationality or whether the ITC issuance was initially challenged. The time lapse between the contract termination and the signing with the new club was not considered sufficient to automatically rebut the presumption of inducement. Consequently, the CAS referred the case back to the FIFA DRC for a decision on the merits of FC Zenit's claim for compensation. FIFA was ordered to bear the arbitration costs of the CAS proceedings.
The detail
Parties: FC Zenit v. Solovev Nikolai, OFK Grbalj & FIFA
Case number: CAS 2023 A 9955
Outcome: The Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld FC Zenit's appeal, set aside the FIFA DRC's decision, and ruled that the FIFA DRC has jurisdiction to decide FC Zenit's claim, referring the matter back to the FIFA DRC for a decision on the merits. FIFA was ordered to bear the arbitration costs.
Applicable law: FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), specifically Article 22(1)(a) RSTP, and subsidiarily Swiss law.
Issues in play: The core legal issue was the interpretation of Article 22(1)(a) RSTP regarding the "international dimension" required for FIFA DRC jurisdiction in disputes between clubs and players concerning contractual stability and international transfers. The CAS panel adopted a broader interpretation than FIFA DRC.
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.