TAS 2023 A 9360 Gilberto Velazco v. FIFA
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 23 Oct 2023
Why it matters
This case is significant for clarifying the scope of FIFA's jurisdiction and the application of its Code of Ethics to officials appointed to Normalisation Committees, even when additional funds originate from other confederations. It underscores the strict interpretation of contractual terms regarding compensation and expenses, emphasizing that any additional benefits must be properly authorized and not create conflicts of interest or abuse of position. The decision reinforces the importance of ethical conduct and financial transparency in football governance.
Summary
Gilberto Velazco, a Venezuelan national, was appointed by FIFA to the Normalisation Committee of the Venezuelan Football Federation (FVF) from September 2020 to May 2021. His contract with FIFA provided a monthly salary of USD 3,000, intended to cover all his expenses. However, the Normalisation Committee, including Velazco, approved additional monthly payments, termed "diets," of USD 2,000 for its members. These payments were justified by the committee as necessary to cover expenses not adequately met by the FIFA salary and were funded by CONMEBOL through a "COVID19 Free Funds" project for the FVF. The FIFA Ethics Committee's Investigatory Chamber initiated proceedings against Velazco, finding that he had violated multiple articles of the FIFA Code of Ethics (Articles 13, 15, 19, 20, 25, and 28). The primary breaches identified were misappropriation and misuse of funds, abuse of position, and conflict of interest, stemming from his involvement in approving and accepting these additional pecuniary advantages. Consequently, Velazco was sanctioned with a one-year ban from all football-related activities, suspended for a two-year probationary period, and a fine of CHF 10,000. Velazco appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). He argued that FIFA lacked jurisdiction because the funds for the "diets" originated from CONMEBOL, not FIFA, and therefore CONMEBOL's regulations should govern. He also contended that he did not receive an economic benefit, as the payments merely offset his incurred expenses, and that the FVF suffered no financial harm. Furthermore, he claimed the sanction was disproportionate. The CAS upheld FIFA's jurisdiction, noting that Velazco was appointed by FIFA and qualified as a "FIFA official," making him subject to the FIFA Code of Ethics. The tribunal emphasized that his contract with FIFA explicitly stated his remuneration covered all expenses, and any additional payments not authorized by FIFA or properly processed as FVF expenses were considered undue. The CAS confirmed that Velazco's actions constituted breaches of the FIFA Code of Ethics, including the duty of loyalty, conflict of interest, and abuse of position. While acknowledging mitigating factors such as Velazco's cooperation, lack of legal background, and absence of prior disciplinary issues, the CAS found the reduced sanction (from an initial minimum of a 5-year ban and CHF 100,000 fine for misappropriation) to be proportionate to the gravity of the offenses. The CAS ultimately dismissed Velazco's appeal and affirmed the FIFA Ethics Committee's decision in its entirety.
The detail
Parties: TAS 2023 A 9360 Gilberto Velazco v. FIFA
Outcome: The Court of Arbitration for Sport dismissed Gilberto Velazco's appeal and confirmed the FIFA Ethics Committee's decision, which had imposed a one-year suspended ban from football activities and a CHF 10,000 fine.
Quantum: CHF 10,000
Applicable law: FIFA Statutes, FIFA Code of Ethics (2020 edition), CONMEBOL Evolution Program Regulations, Swiss law (subsidiary)
Issues in play: The case centered on the FIFA Code of Ethics, specifically Articles 13 (General duties), 15 (Duty of loyalty), 19 (Conflict of interests), 20 (Offering and accepting gifts or other benefits), 25 (Abuse of position), and 28 (Misappropriation and misuse of funds). The core legal collision was between Velazco's contractual remuneration with FIFA and the additional "diet" payments approved by the FVF Normalisation Committee, which were deemed undue pecuniary advantages and an abuse of position.
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.