The case involves a dispute between Bursaspor Kulübü Dernegi and the Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) regarding violations of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play (CL&FFP) Regulations. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) reviewed Bursaspor's appeal against a UEFA Appeals Body decision dated 30 May 2012, which imposed sanctions for the club's failure to meet financial obligations, specifically an overdue payment to Portsmouth FC from a 2007 transfer agreement. The UEFA CL&FFP Regulations aim to ensure financial stability and transparency by requiring clubs to settle liabilities promptly, including transfer fees, and to disclose their financial situation accurately. Bursaspor had agreed to pay Portsmouth €500,000 in installments but failed to pay the remaining €300,000, leading to a FIFA claim that was initially suspended due to Portsmouth's administration status but later revived.
Bursaspor applied for a UEFA license in 2011, disclosing the pending dispute with Portsmouth in its transfer payables form. Despite this, the UEFA Club Financial Control Panel (CFCP) identified the overdue payment as a breach of financial regulations. Bursaspor eventually settled the debt in November 2011, paying €350,979.45, including interest. However, the CFCP found Bursaspor in violation for failing to disclose the overdue payment during the licensing process. UEFA's Control and Disciplinary Body (CDB) fined Bursaspor €200,000 and imposed a suspended exclusion from UEFA competitions for four seasons. The UEFA Appeals Body later reduced the fine to €50,000 (suspended for three years) but enforced an immediate exclusion from one UEFA competition over the next three seasons, citing the seriousness of the breach.
Bursaspor appealed to CAS, arguing that UEFA lacked jurisdiction under Article 49 of the CL&FFP Regulations, as licensing enforcement was delegated to the Turkish Football Federation (TFF). The club also claimed the sanctions violated the ne bis in idem principle and were disproportionate, referencing similar cases like Gyori ETO and Besiktas, where clubs received lesser penalties. UEFA maintained that its disciplinary bodies had the authority to sanction violations, emphasizing the importance of financial transparency and the integrity of the licensing system. The CAS Panel confirmed its jurisdiction and reviewed the case under Article R57 of the CAS Code, applying the UEFA CL&FFP Regulations (2010 edition) and Swiss law.
The Panel found Bursaspor guilty of breaching Article 65 of the CL&FFP Regulations for having overdue payables but concluded that the UEFA Appeals Body's sanctions were disproportionate. The Panel noted inconsistencies in the severity of penalties across similar cases and modified the sanction to a suspended exclusion for one UEFA club competition over the next four seasons, with a probationary period of three years, and a fine of €250,000, reflecting the amount Bursaspor earned from participating in the 2011-2012 UEFA Europa League. The decision highlighted the need for proportionality and equal treatment in disciplinary measures, balancing the enforcement of financial regulations with fairness. The CAS partially upheld Bursaspor's appeal, annulling the UEFA Appeals Body's decision and imposing the modified sanctions. The case underscores the challenges clubs face in adhering to financial regulations and the importance of transparency in financial reporting to governing bodies like UEFA.