The case revolves around a dispute between FC Schalke 04 and the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF) concerning the release of player Rafinha for the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. Schalke argued that under FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), they were not obligated to release Rafinha, as the Olympics were not listed on the coordinated international match calendar or mandated by FIFA's Executive Committee. The CBF, however, insisted that releasing under-23 players for the Olympics was obligatory, citing customary practice and FIFA's public statements. The German Football Association supported Schalke's position, while the CBF proceeded to include Rafinha in the Brazilian team, leading Schalke to accuse him of breaching his contract by joining the national team instead of attending the club's training camp.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) addressed procedural questions regarding what constitutes an appealable decision, ruling that a formal decision must unilaterally affect legal rights and not merely serve as an informative communication. The panel emphasized that FIFA's refusal to act or prolonged inaction could amount to a denial of justice, making it subject to CAS appeal. On August 6, 2008, CAS ruled in favor of Schalke, stating the club had no legal obligation to release Rafinha. Schalke then proposed a conditional release involving financial compensation and insurance, but the CBF did not respond. Subsequently, Schalke filed a claim with FIFA, seeking to prevent further pressure on Rafinha and requesting sanctions.
FIFA responded on August 12, stating it could not intervene, as the claim was based on an alleged breach of contract between the player and the club, which did not involve the CBF as a third party. Dissatisfied, Schalke appealed to CAS, arguing that FIFA's letter constituted a formal decision. The CAS panel, however, determined that the letter was merely administrative and did not alter the legal situation of the parties, rendering the appeal inadmissible. The panel referenced CAS precedents and Swiss law to clarify that a decision must contain a ruling with legal consequences, which FIFA's letter lacked. The case highlighted tensions between club obligations and national team demands, as well as the procedural challenges in appealing administrative communications.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld that FIFA's letter was not a formal decision, dismissing Schalke's appeal and closing the proceedings. The ruling reinforced the importance of clear, binding decisions from governing bodies and clarified the distinction between procedural refusals and substantive denials of justice in sports arbitration. The case underscored the complexities of balancing contractual commitments with international football interests, particularly for non-mandatory tournaments like the Olympics.