The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a significant ruling on 30 April 2012 in the case between Club Rangers de Talca and FIFA, addressing the legal succession of a bankrupt football club and the resulting inequities in the football market. The case involved Club Social y Deportivo Rangers de Talca, a Chilean football club declared bankrupt in 2009. Its assets, including federative rights, player contracts, and branding, were auctioned off, with Piduco S.A.D.P. acquiring them in 2010. The CAS panel ruled that Piduco, by maintaining the club's identity, name, colors, and participation in national competitions, was the legal successor of the bankrupt club. This decision underscored the importance of continuity in a club's identity for succession purposes.
The case also highlighted the unfair advantages bankrupt clubs enjoy in the football market. While bankrupt clubs benefit from legal protections like the equal treatment of creditors, solvent clubs must meet their financial obligations promptly. This disparity disrupts fair competition and contradicts the principles of "lex sportiva," which emphasize equality in sports. The panel noted that such inequities undermine the integrity of competitions where bankrupt and solvent clubs operate under different financial constraints.
A key issue was whether Piduco, as the successor, was liable for the bankrupt club's debts, particularly unpaid player salaries. FIFA had initially ordered the club to pay a player's outstanding wages, but when the debt remained unpaid, disciplinary measures were imposed. The CAS panel examined whether Piduco should bear responsibility for these debts under Swiss law, which holds acquirers of a business jointly liable for pre-transfer employee claims. However, the panel noted an exception in cases where the acquisition follows bankruptcy, as the bankrupt entity ceases to exist. The panel rejected Piduco's argument, finding the exception inapplicable because the bankruptcy proceedings had concluded by the time disciplinary actions began, meaning Piduco could have paid the debt.
Despite this, the panel ultimately ruled in favor of Piduco, citing the player's lack of diligence in pursuing his claim during bankruptcy proceedings. The player, aware of the bankruptcy, had initially expressed intent to claim his debt but failed to follow through, even though Chilean law prioritized labor claims in bankruptcy. The panel found that the player's inaction contributed to the non-payment, undermining the basis for sanctions. Consequently, the CAS revoked FIFA's disciplinary decision, lifting all sanctions against Piduco.
The ruling clarified the complexities of club succession in bankruptcy cases, balancing legal principles with sporting regulations. It emphasized the need for fairness in treating clubs and players while highlighting the responsibilities of creditors to actively pursue claims. The decision serves as a precedent for similar cases, ensuring that disciplinary measures are justified only when all parties have acted diligently. The CAS upheld Piduco's appeal, dismissing FIFA's sanctions and reinforcing the importance of procedural fairness in sports governance.