The case involves an appeal by Horacio Luis Rolla, a football agent, against FIFA and U.S. Città di Palermo SpA regarding unpaid fees for his involvement in the transfer of player Roberto E. from Palermo to S.S.C. Napoli. Rolla claimed he was entitled to a commission under a representation agreement, but Palermo argued he had no role in the permanent transfer negotiations. Rolla filed a claim with FIFA, which responded in a letter dated June 21, 2012, stating it could not intervene due to violations of the Players’ Agents Regulations, which prohibit clubs from paying agents a percentage of transfer fees. Rolla interpreted FIFA’s letter as a formal decision denying jurisdiction and appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS panel examined whether FIFA’s letter constituted an appealable decision. It noted that a decision’s legal effect depends on its objective impact, not the issuing authority’s intent. The panel found FIFA’s letter, while phrased as administrative, effectively closed the matter without offering further recourse, thus qualifying as a decision. However, the panel also determined that FIFA’s handling of the case was procedurally flawed, as it was managed by administrative staff rather than the appropriate judicial body. This bypassed formal procedural requirements, such as a reasoned decision by the Players’ Status Committee or Dispute Resolution Chamber.
The parties disagreed on whether CAS should rule on the merits or refer the case back to FIFA. Rolla and Palermo requested a direct ruling, while FIFA argued the appeal was inadmissible or, subsidiarily, that the case should be remanded. The panel concluded that since FIFA had not issued a decision on the merits—only declining jurisdiction—CAS lacked authority to substitute a substantive ruling. Citing procedural fairness and legal considerations, the panel partially upheld Rolla’s appeal, voided FIFA’s decision, and remanded the case to FIFA’s competent judicial body for a proper adjudication. All other requests, including compensation and cost claims, were dismissed.
The case underscores the importance of procedural rigor in sports arbitration, particularly the distinction between administrative communications and formal decisions. It highlights the need for disputes to be resolved by authorized judicial bodies to ensure fairness and legal clarity. The panel’s ruling reaffirmed that while CAS can review jurisdictional decisions, it cannot bypass FIFA’s internal processes when no substantive decision has been made. The outcome emphasizes the balance between expediency and procedural integrity in resolving sports-related disputes.