The case involves an appeal by Besiktas Jimnastik Kulübü (Besiktas) against a decision by UEFA to exclude the club from the 2013-2014 UEFA Europa League due to alleged involvement in match-fixing during the 2011 Turkish Cup Final. The dispute centered on suspicions that Besiktas officials, including former coach T. and board member S., manipulated the match against I.B.B. Spor. UEFA's Appeals Body found sufficient evidence of indirect involvement, leading to the club's exclusion. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel, comprising Fabio Iudica, Martin Schimke, and Efraim Barak, examined the legal and factual aspects of the case.
The panel confirmed that UEFA bore the burden of proof under Swiss Civil Code (Article 8), requiring a standard of "comfortable satisfaction" as per Article 2.08 of the UEFA Europa League Regulations (UELR), rather than the stricter criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt." The panel clarified that Article 2.08 UELR is not punitive but establishes eligibility criteria for UEFA competitions. Indirect involvement under this provision includes any activity that could influence a match's outcome, even if not explicitly intended, provided the club was aware of such implications. The term "aimed at" does not require the activity to have succeeded; an attempt suffices.
The case stemmed from wiretapped communications between Besiktas officials and Y., a football agent linked to I.B.B. Spor players. These interactions, occurring before the Cup Final, raised suspicions of match manipulation. Besiktas argued the discussions were legitimate transfer negotiations, but the panel found the timing and secrecy of the meetings unusual, undermining the club's claims. The Turkish Football Federation (TFF) initially cleared Besiktas of wrongdoing, but a Turkish High Court later convicted the officials of match-fixing, sentencing them to imprisonment and football-related bans. UEFA relied on this court decision to exclude Besiktas, though the club contended UEFA failed to properly evaluate the TFF's findings.
The panel upheld UEFA's decision, emphasizing that Besiktas's indirect involvement in activities potentially influencing the match warranted exclusion under Article 2.08 UELR. The ruling underscored the importance of integrity in sports and UEFA's authority to enforce eligibility standards based on credible evidence. The panel dismissed Besiktas's procedural objections, noting the club had ample opportunity to present its case and that UEFA's reliance on the High Court's decision was justified. The absence of key witnesses, such as Y., further weakened Besiktas's position.
Ultimately, the CAS panel confirmed UEFA's sanctions, reinforcing the zero-tolerance stance against match-fixing. The decision highlighted the challenges of addressing corruption in sports, balancing the need for prompt action with fair procedural safeguards. The case serves as a precedent for interpreting indirect involvement in match-fixing and the standard of proof required in such disciplinary proceedings. The panel's ruling affirmed the importance of maintaining football's integrity through stringent regulatory enforcement.