The case involves William Lanes de Lima, a professional football player, who filed a claim against FIFA and Real Betis Balompié after his employment contract dispute was dismissed by FIFA due to the club's bankruptcy proceedings. The player had signed a five-year contract with Real Betis in 2007 but suffered an injury in 2009, leading to a failed loan transfer to Flamengo. When Flamengo refused to sign him due to a failed medical test, the player terminated his contract and sought unpaid salaries, medical costs, and damages through FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC). However, FIFA's Players' Status general secretariat informed the player in 2011 that its decision-making bodies could not handle cases involving clubs in bankruptcy, effectively closing his claim without a formal decision.
The player appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that FIFA's general secretariat lacked the authority to decide jurisdictional matters and that the dismissal violated FIFA's regulations, which ensure fair procedures. The CAS panel ruled that FIFA's letter constituted a legally binding decision but emphasized that administrative bodies like the general secretariat are not competent to determine the jurisdiction of FIFA's judicial bodies. The panel highlighted the importance of fair procedure, stating that parties must have the opportunity to present their arguments before a final decision is made by the appropriate judicial body.
In its award dated October 3, 2012, the CAS did not admit the player's request for relief regarding FIFA's jurisdiction but referred the case back to the appropriate FIFA dispute resolution body. This was to ensure that FIFA's practice of closing cases involving bankrupt clubs is reviewed for compliance with its own statutes and regulations. The panel underscored the necessity for FIFA's competent bodies to decide on their jurisdiction in the first instance, aligning with Article R57 of the CAS Code. The case underscores the procedural rights of parties in sports disputes and the importance of jurisdictional clarity within FIFA's regulatory framework.
The appellant contested FIFA's decision to close the case, arguing that FIFA's general secretariat lacked the authority to decide jurisdictional matters and that the dismissal violated FIFA's regulations. FIFA defended its practice, stating that administrative closures were necessary for efficiency and that its long-standing practice of closing cases involving bankrupt clubs had become customary association law under Swiss law. The CAS panel sided with the appellant on the procedural issue, ruling that FIFA's general secretariat could not unilaterally decide jurisdiction and must allow parties a fair hearing before the proper judicial body.
The panel refrained from definitively ruling on FIFA's jurisdiction over bankruptcy-related cases, instead remanding the matter to FIFA's dispute resolution bodies for an initial determination. The panel instructed FIFA to examine whether its regulations contained a gap permitting case closures in bankruptcy scenarios and to assess the compatibility of its practice with Swiss association law and its own statutes. Ultimately, the panel upheld the appellant's procedural objections, ordering FIFA to revisit the case with proper judicial oversight, while leaving the substantive jurisdictional question for FIFA to resolve in accordance with its regulations and legal principles.
The CAS partially upheld the appeal, set aside FIFA's prior decision, and referred the case back to FIFA for a new decision in line with the award's reasoning. All other requests by the appellant were dismissed. The ruling emphasizes the need for FIFA to carefully review its regulations and practices in similar cases to ensure fairness and compliance with its own framework. The case highlights the procedural and jurisdictional complexities in sports arbitration, particularly when bankruptcy proceedings intersect with contractual disputes under FIFA's regulatory framework.