The case revolves around a prolonged legal dispute between professional football player Zbyněk Pospěch and the Football Association of the Czech Republic (FACR), which was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The conflict originated in 2006 when Pospěch signed a mandate contract with an agent, assigning transfer rights. In 2008, he independently negotiated a contract with a Slovak club, allegedly breaching the mandate. The agent demanded a €100,000 penalty, which the FACR’s Arbitration Commission upheld in 2009. Pospěch challenged this decision in Czech courts but later withdrew his claim, leading the FACR to pursue disciplinary measures against him for non-payment. The FACR’s Disciplinary Committee imposed severe sanctions, including terminating his professional football career unless he complied with the payment order. Pospěch appealed to the FACR’s Appeal and Review Commission, but his appeal was dismissed in 2010.
The dispute escalated as Pospěch faced financial and professional consequences, including his club withholding his salary and his eventual bankruptcy in 2012. He accused the FACR of procedural irregularities and inaction, arguing that its refusal to address his case constituted a denial of justice. In 2013, the FACR’s Arbitration and Resolution Committee issued an opinion stating it lacked jurisdiction to reopen the case, prompting Pospěch to appeal to CAS. He sought damages for financial losses incurred due to the football ban, including insolvency-related debts and lost earnings. The FACR contested CAS jurisdiction, arguing the appeal was inadmissible, untimely, and directed at an informal opinion rather than a formal decision.
The CAS panel, comprising arbitrators from Israel, Switzerland, and the Czech Republic, examined jurisdictional issues and a request by the FACR for a security deposit to cover potential legal costs. The panel dismissed the request, noting Pospěch had demonstrated financial capacity by paying CAS fees and that the FACR’s sanctions contributed to his financial difficulties. The panel affirmed its authority to determine jurisdiction under Swiss law but ultimately ruled that the FACR’s 2013 letter was not an appealable decision, as it lacked binding legal effect. Consequently, CAS dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, leaving unresolved questions about the validity of prior FACR decisions. The case underscores the complexities of sports arbitration, including procedural fairness, the enforceability of sanctions, and the financial repercussions of disciplinary actions in football disputes.