The case involves a legal dispute between the Football Federation of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRIFF), FIFA, and Branko Ivankovic, a football coach, concerning the termination of Ivankovic's employment as head coach of the Iranian national team. The FIFA Players’ Status Committee (PSC) ruled in favor of Ivankovic in September 2008, ordering IRIFF to pay him USD 10,000 plus interest from July 2006, USD 454,000 plus interest from June 2007, and CHF 10,000 in procedural costs. The decision warned that non-compliance would lead to referral to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee. IRIFF appealed the PSC decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in November 2008, but named only FIFA as the respondent, excluding Ivankovic. FIFA contested CAS jurisdiction, arguing it was not a party to the underlying dispute. In November 2009, the CAS panel dismissed IRIFF’s appeal, upholding the PSC decision and noting the procedural error of excluding Ivankovic from the proceedings. The panel emphasized that FIFA acted only as a decision-making body and had no standing in the dispute.
When IRIFF failed to comply with the payment order, FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee imposed a fine. IRIFF appealed this disciplinary decision to CAS in 2010, arguing the sanction was inappropriate. The CAS panel, in its December 2010 award, confirmed its review was limited to verifying compliance with the earlier FIFA decision, not re-examining the merits of the dispute, which had already been resolved. Since IRIFF provided no evidence of compliance or contested the fine’s proportionality, the panel upheld the sanction. The case highlights the principle that CAS panels in appellate proceedings cannot revisit settled disputes and must respect the scope of initial decisions. It also underscores the importance of including all relevant parties in legal proceedings to ensure fairness.
In subsequent proceedings, the IRIFF continued to challenge the disciplinary measures, arguing the original dispute’s merits were unresolved and requesting the fine be redirected to youth football development. FIFA and Ivankovic opposed the appeal, with FIFA seeking dismissal and Ivankovic asserting his entitlement to the payments. The CAS Panel reiterated that its review was confined to the disciplinary decision and could not revisit the underlying dispute, which had been conclusively settled in prior rulings. The Panel emphasized the finality of the 2009 CAS award, as IRIFF had not appealed it to the Swiss Federal Tribunal. The Panel upheld the FIFA Disciplinary Committee’s fine of CHF 25,000, rejecting IRIFF’s attempts to reopen the substantive dispute.
The case illustrates the procedural boundaries of CAS appeals and the binding nature of prior rulings. It reinforces FIFA’s authority to enforce compliance through disciplinary measures and underscores the importance of adhering to legal procedures. The IRIFF’s failure to include Ivankovic in the initial appeal and its subsequent attempts to relitigate settled issues were ultimately unsuccessful, demonstrating the consequences of procedural missteps in legal proceedings. The final CAS ruling dismissed IRIFF’s appeal, upholding the disciplinary sanction and affirming the finality of the earlier decisions.