The case involves football players Eric Addo and Ruud van Nistelrooij, who were employed by PSV Eindhoven and sought arbitration against UEFA after being excluded from the UEFA Cup due to a missed registration deadline. UEFA had denied their registration on February 22, 2001, citing the February 1 deadline, as both players had been injured and unable to play since the start of the season. PSV Eindhoven appealed UEFA's decision to the Control and Disciplinary Body, which upheld the ruling on March 7. A further appeal to UEFA's Appeals Body was rejected on March 14, prompting the players to file for arbitration with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) the same day, seeking provisional measures to allow their participation in the UEFA Cup quarter-finals.
UEFA contested CAS's jurisdiction, arguing the dispute was purely sporting and fell under its exclusive authority as per its statutes. The players countered that UEFA's decision had financial implications, potentially justifying CAS intervention. The CAS Deputy President provisionally acknowledged the sporting nature of the dispute but deferred the final jurisdictional decision to the full Panel, referencing a prior case (Real Madrid v. UEFA) where CAS asserted its competence to assess dispute nature. Procedural issues were also addressed, including the players' standing as parties, given their absence in prior UEFA proceedings. The CAS found the appeal admissible for interim purposes but reserved the right to revisit this.
Regarding provisional measures, the players argued UEFA's deadline was unclear and served no reasonable purpose, while UEFA maintained its decision was justified. The CAS did not grant the provisional measures, leaving substantive issues for the Panel to resolve. The order emphasized the need for further examination of jurisdiction, admissibility, and the merits, deferring final decisions to the full arbitration Panel.
In a subsequent decision, the CAS considered the appellants' request for provisional measures to participate in the UEFA Cup, including a match on March 15, 2001. UEFA argued the players failed to meet the registration deadline, did not demonstrate irreparable harm, and that enforcing its regulations outweighed the appellants' interests. The CAS evaluated the principles for granting provisional measures, including irreparable harm, likelihood of success, and balance of interests. It found no evidence of confusion between UEFA's Champions League and UEFA Cup regulations, as both had the same registration deadline, which was clearly communicated to member associations. The CAS concluded the appellants' desire to participate did not outweigh UEFA's interest in uniformly applying its rules, and the decision under appeal appeared consistent with UEFA regulations. The request for provisional measures was dismissed, with the Deputy President ruling to reject the application without costs, allowing proceedings to continue but denying provisional measures at this stage. The case highlights the complexities of sports arbitration, jurisdictional debates, and the balance between regulatory enforcement and athlete participation.