The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on May 5, 2011, concerning an appeal by professional football players N. and V. against sanctions imposed by the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA). The case stemmed from allegations of match-fixing during a UEFA Champions League match between Debreceni VSC and Fiorentina on October 20, 2009. UEFA had accused the players of failing to report illicit approaches by a criminal gang attempting to manipulate the match for betting purposes. The UEFA Disciplinary Body initially suspended N. until December 31, 2011, with a €7,000 fine, and V. until June 30, 2012, with a €10,000 fine. The players appealed these sanctions to CAS, arguing insufficient evidence and procedural flaws.
The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Luigi Fumagalli, Mr. Andras Gurovits, and Mr. Christian Duve, examined the case under Swiss law and UEFA regulations. It emphasized the need for individualized evidence to establish disciplinary responsibility, applying a "balance of probability" standard rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. The panel underscored the principles of loyalty, integrity, and sportsmanship under Article 5 of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations, which obligate players to report suspicious approaches to uphold football’s integrity. The panel rejected the players' claim that fear of retaliation excused their silence, stating such concerns do not absolve them of their disciplinary obligations.
Regarding V., the panel found compelling evidence, including intercepted phone conversations and witness statements, indicating his contact with the criminal group. While V. admitted prior interactions with match-fixers, he failed to report them, violating UEFA rules. The panel upheld his sanctions, deeming them proportionate given the gravity of the offense. In contrast, the panel ruled that UEFA failed to provide sufficient evidence against N., as references to his jersey number in communications were too ambiguous to prove involvement. Consequently, N.'s appeal was granted, and his sanctions were overturned.
The decision reinforced UEFA’s zero-tolerance policy toward match-fixing, stressing the importance of player cooperation in combating corruption. It also clarified the evidentiary standards in disciplinary proceedings, balancing the need for rigorous proof with the challenges of uncovering concealed misconduct. The CAS panel’s partial annulment of UEFA’s decision highlighted the necessity of individualized and credible evidence to justify sanctions. The ruling upheld V.’s penalties while exonerating N., dismissing all other claims for relief. The case underscored the critical role of transparency and accountability in preserving football’s integrity.