The case involves David Savic, a Serbian professional tennis player, who appealed a decision by the Professional Tennis Integrity Officers (PTIOs) for alleged match-fixing violations under the Uniform Tennis Anti-Corruption Program (UTAP). The PTIOs, representing governing bodies like the ATP and ITF, imposed a lifetime ban and a $100,000 fine on Savic after finding him guilty of corruption offenses. The allegations stemmed from claims by another player, referred to as X., who reported that Savic had offered him $30,000 to lose the first set of a match, with the promise that he would win the subsequent sets. X. recognized Savic’s voice during a phone call and later received a text message from Savic’s number reiterating the offer. The Tennis Integrity Unit (TIU) investigated, but Savic denied the allegations and could not explain the evidence against him, including the text message.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upheld the lifetime ban, ruling that match-fixing is a severe offense threatening the integrity of sports and justifying such a sanction. The CAS noted that voice recognition evidence is reliable and that the standard of proof required—preponderance of evidence—was met. However, the CAS deemed the additional $100,000 fine inappropriate, as the lifetime ban already carried significant financial consequences for Savic. The decision emphasized that sanctions must be proportionate to the offense and reflect the athlete’s guilt, but a lifetime ban for match-fixing does not violate public policy.
The case highlights the strict enforcement of anti-corruption measures in professional tennis and the serious consequences for violations. The CAS affirmed the need for stringent penalties to deter match-fixing while ensuring fairness in disciplinary actions. The ruling reinforces the principle that protecting the sport’s integrity outweighs individual career rights in cases of deliberate corruption. The CAS ultimately dismissed Savic’s appeal, maintaining the lifetime ban but removing the fine.
The procedural aspects of the case involved multiple hearings, witness testimonies, and expert reports. Savic insisted on the physical presence of witness X., while the PTIOs argued for video-conference testimony due to logistical constraints. The CAS panel, comprising arbitrators Dirk-Reiner Martens, Michael J. Beloff QC, and David W. Rivkin, conducted a de novo review of the evidence. The panel found X.'s testimony credible, noting his past friendship with Savic and the consistency of his account. Savic’s defense, which claimed a third party had impersonated him, was dismissed due to lack of evidence.
The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction over the dispute, as agreed by both parties and stipulated in the UTAP. The applicable law was determined to be the 2010 version of the UTAP, given the timing of the alleged offenses. The UTAP defines corruption offenses, including attempts to influence match outcomes or solicit players to underperform, and outlines sanctions such as fines, ineligibility, and potential permanent bans. The burden of proof lies with the PTIO, requiring a preponderance of evidence to establish a corruption offense.
The final award, issued on 5 September 2012, partially upheld Savic’s appeal by maintaining the lifetime ban but removing the fine. The decision underscores the CAS's commitment to upholding disciplinary measures that protect the integrity of sports while ensuring proportionality in penalties. The case serves as a stark reminder of the severe repercussions for match-fixing in professional tennis.