The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) case TAS 2006/A/1154 involved FC Locarno appealing a decision by the Swiss Football League (SFL) regarding a match forfeiture. The dispute stemmed from FC Locarno fielding an unqualified player, D., during a Challenge League match against FC La Chaux-de-Fonds on July 29, 2006, which FC Locarno won 2-1. The player was still registered with AC Lugano at the time, as the transfer paperwork had not been finalized with the competent authority. The SFL's Disciplinary Commission ruled that FC Locarno violated Article 3 of its competition regulations, which mandates that clubs can only field qualified players. As a result, FC Locarno was penalized with a forfeit loss under Article 72 of the SFL's Rules of the Game, along with a symbolic fine of CHF 50 and procedural costs of CHF 400. The decision referenced established jurisprudence, including a similar case involving FC Zurich in 1999.
FC Locarno appealed to CAS, arguing the decision was unjust and disproportionate. The club claimed administrative error and good faith, asserting that the player did not participate in the match (he remained on the bench) and thus had no direct influence on the outcome. FC Locarno also contended that the sanction harmed fair competition, given the economic implications for the club and other teams. The SFL challenged CAS's jurisdiction, framing the forfeit as a matter of game rules rather than legal rules, thus falling under the SFL's autonomous authority.
The CAS panel addressed several key issues. First, it affirmed its jurisdiction, distinguishing the forfeit decision from typical in-game rulings, as it involved interpreting federation regulations rather than on-field judgments. Second, the panel noted the blurring line between "rules of the game" and "rules of law," emphasizing that some game rules can have legal effects beyond the match, warranting external judicial review. Third, it rejected the proportionality argument, stating that codified sports rules must be applied as written, leaving modifications to the governing bodies. The panel also dismissed FC Locarno's claim that the player's bench presence had no impact, acknowledging tactical and psychological influences.
Ultimately, CAS upheld the SFL's decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to registration rules to maintain competitive integrity. The ruling underscored that economic considerations, while significant, do not override the necessity of enforcing sporting regulations. The case reinforced the principle that clubs bear responsibility for ensuring player eligibility, regardless of intent or indirect influence on match outcomes. The CAS rejected arguments about proportionality and unfair competition laws, stating that the primary issue was the clear violation of sporting regulations. The decision highlighted the CAS's role in enforcing regulatory compliance while deferring rule modifications to the relevant sporting bodies.
In the end, the CAS declared FC Locarno's appeal admissible but dismissed it on the merits, confirming the forfeit and the symbolic fine. The case underscored the importance of consistent and rigorous application of game rules to maintain the integrity of the sports governance system. The CAS emphasized that any perceived harshness or lack of flexibility in the rules should be addressed internally by the association itself, not by external judicial bodies. The ruling reinforced the principle that sporting rules must be upheld to ensure fairness and integrity in competitive sports.