The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on July 3, 2009, in the case between FC La Chaux-de-Fonds and the Swiss Football League (SFL) regarding the club's license application for the Challenge League. The dispute centered on the legal status of FC La Chaux-de-Fonds, which had delegated management of its first team to FCC La Chaux-de-Fonds SA, a joint-stock company, through a cooperation agreement. The SFL denied the license application, leading to an appeal. The CAS addressed several key issues, including the validity of the SFL's dismissal order, the club's legal structure, and compliance with SFL regulations. The CAS ruled that Challenge League clubs must choose between being an association or a joint-stock company, with no hybrid forms permitted. The license could not be transferred back to the original association, as SFL regulations explicitly prohibit such transfers. The cooperation agreement between the association and the joint-stock company outlined shared responsibilities but was found non-compliant with SFL requirements, as licenses cannot be shared or transferred. The ruling emphasized the SFL's authority to enforce its regulations, ensuring uniformity in club structures.
The case also involved disputes over membership rights and licensing procedures. FC La Chaux-de-Fonds argued that the SFL failed to address a regulatory gap when the cooperation agreement broke down, but the SFL maintained that only the joint-stock company could hold the license. The CAS confirmed that the association relinquished its membership when the joint-stock company was granted the license, aligning with SFL statutes. The appellant's claim to substitute itself for the joint-stock company in the licensing process was rejected, as the regulations did not permit such transfers. The CAS also dismissed arguments that the situation was unforeseen, stating the SFL's provisions explicitly excluded such scenarios. The tribunal upheld the SFL's decisions, reinforcing the legal separation between the association and the joint-stock company and the non-transferability of licenses.
The case highlights the complexities of sports governance, particularly in transitions between traditional club structures and modern corporate frameworks. The CAS's ruling underscored the importance of strict adherence to league regulations and the clarity of legal frameworks in resolving disputes. The decision affirmed the SFL's authority to enforce its rules, ensuring competitive integrity and uniformity among member clubs. The tribunal dismissed all appeals, concluding that the appellant's claims were unfounded under the applicable regulations. The case serves as a precedent for similar disputes involving club licensing and membership rights in sports governance.