The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) case 2010/A/2112 involved a dispute between FC Rapid Bucuresti, FC Timisoara, and the Romanian Professional Football League (RPFL) regarding the eligibility of two players, V. and B., during a match on 5 March 2010. The conflict arose when FC Timisoara contested the players' eligibility, arguing their transfer to FC Rapid violated Romanian football regulations. FC Rapid had signed transfer agreements and employment contracts but failed to register the players with the relevant authorities within the designated transfer window. The Bucharest Municipal Football Association (AMFB) initially denied the registration request, declaring the transfers null and void, but later reversed its decision under specific conditions. However, the RPFL annulled the players' eligibility, leading FC Timisoara to challenge their participation in the match, which FC Rapid won 1-0.
The case proceeded through multiple disciplinary bodies, including the Disciplinary Committee of the Liga Profesionistă de Fotbal (LPF), which deferred some issues to other bodies but ultimately ruled the players had irregularly exercised their right to play. This decision was upheld by the LPF Appeal Committee, prompting FC Rapid to appeal to CAS. The CAS panel, composed of three arbitrators after FC Rapid's request for a sole arbitrator was opposed, examined procedural and substantive issues, including jurisdiction, applicable law, and the status of the RPFL as a party. The panel confirmed its jurisdiction under the statutes of the Romanian Football Federation (FRF) and the CAS Code, applying general principles of Lex Sportiva and Swiss law due to the lack of specific arguments based on Romanian law.
The panel rejected FC Rapid's procedural arguments, including its attempt to withdraw the appeal against the RPFL without consent, and upheld the validity of the contestation process. It found that FC Rapid failed to register the players within the required 45-day period, rendering them ineligible. The panel also dismissed FC Rapid's argument that the AMFB's later decision to allow the players' participation invalidated the LPF's visa cancellations, emphasizing the autonomy of the LPF and AMFB as separate entities. The CAS panel ultimately ruled in favor of FC Timisoara and the RPFL, confirming the players' ineligibility and upholding the disciplinary decisions. The case highlighted the importance of adhering to registration deadlines, procedural formalities, and the autonomy of football governing bodies in administrative matters. The final award rejected FC Rapid's appeal and dismissed all further claims, bringing closure to the dispute.