The case involves Fenerbahçe Spor Kulübü and UEFA, centered around allegations of match-fixing during the 2010-2011 Turkish Süper Lig season. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a final award on 11 April 2014, addressing disciplinary sanctions imposed by UEFA. The panel, composed of Manfred Nan, Ulrich Haas, and Rui Botica Santos, examined legal principles such as the definition of match-fixing, res judicata, ne bis in idem, UEFA's competence to initiate disciplinary proceedings, the standard of proof, liability of legal entities, and the proportionality of sanctions.
Match-fixing was defined in both "classic" and "modern" senses. The classic form involves influencing match outcomes for personal benefit, while the modern form involves third parties manipulating events for betting profits. UEFA's authority to discipline clubs for match-fixing in national competitions was upheld, citing relevant regulations. The standard of proof in disciplinary cases was established as "beyond reasonable doubt," though circumstantial evidence may suffice under "comfortable satisfaction" when direct proof is inaccessible. Legal entities like clubs can only be held liable for match-fixing through the actions of their officials.
The allegations against Fenerbahçe included bribery and incentive payments to influence matches during the 2010-2011 season. A new Turkish law criminalizing match-fixing took effect in April 2011. Fenerbahçe sought participation in the 2011-2012 UEFA Champions League, prompting UEFA's disciplinary action. The Turkish Football Federation (TFF) withdrew Fenerbahçe from the Champions League following UEFA's urging, and subsequent appeals by Fenerbahçe were rejected. Criminal indictments were issued against Fenerbahçe officials, and disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the TFF. The TFF Ethics Committee found insufficient evidence to conclusively prove match-fixing by certain officials but noted that some activities could be attributed to the club due to the involvement of a board member.
UEFA's Control and Disciplinary Body (CDB) considered opening disciplinary proceedings but deferred a final decision pending further review. Despite ongoing investigations, Fenerbahçe was allowed to participate in the 2012-2013 UEFA Champions League. The 16th High Criminal Court of Istanbul later convicted several Fenerbahçe officials for forming a criminal organization and engaging in match-fixing, handing down prison sentences and fines. This contradicted the TFF's earlier decisions, highlighting discrepancies between judicial and football disciplinary processes.
Fenerbahçe appealed UEFA's sanctions, arguing procedural violations and lack of fairness. The CAS panel found that while UEFA's proceedings had flaws, these were remedied by the de novo review process at CAS. The panel upheld UEFA's authority to impose sanctions but limited the scope to five matches explicitly addressed in the initial proceedings. The panel concluded that Fenerbahçe officials attempted to fix four matches, applying the "comfortable satisfaction" standard of proof. The panel upheld UEFA's decision to impose a two-year ban on Fenerbahçe from UEFA competitions, dismissing claims of procedural unfairness and disproportionate sanctions.
The case underscores the complexities of addressing match-fixing allegations, involving multiple legal and sporting bodies with differing outcomes. It highlights the challenges of proving institutional involvement in match-fixing and the legal and disciplinary challenges faced by clubs under investigation. The decision reinforces the importance of upholding disciplinary measures to maintain integrity in sports, balancing procedural fairness with the need to combat corruption in football.