The case involves a legal dispute between Club Deportivo Social y Cultural Cruz Azul (Cruz Azul), the Chilean Football Federation (FFCh), and FIFA, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The dispute arose from injuries sustained by a Cruz Azul player during international duty with the Chilean national team in November 2011. The player suffered an Achilles tendon injury, which was allegedly aggravated during subsequent matches, leading to his prolonged absence and eventual contract termination. Cruz Azul sought USD 1,650,000 in compensation from FFCh and FIFA, arguing that the federation’s negligence in managing the player’s injury caused financial losses, including medical expenses and salary payments.
FIFA rejected the claim, citing Article 2 of Annex 1 to the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), which places the responsibility on clubs to insure their players against injuries during international duty. FFCh did not respond to the claim. The CAS panel, comprising Mark Hovell, Rui Botica Santos, and Michele Bernasconi, examined the case and ruled that Cruz Azul failed to provide sufficient legal basis or evidence to prove FFCh’s negligence. The panel emphasized that clubs are obligated under the RSTP to release players for international matches but must insure them against injury risks, with no explicit liability on federations or FIFA for such injuries.
The proceedings highlighted procedural complexities, including jurisdictional disputes and language requirements. Cruz Azul initially filed its claim with FIFA’s Players’ Status Committee (PSC), which dismissed it on jurisdictional grounds, advising the club to refer the matter to CAS. The club subsequently appealed to CAS, seeking to annul FIFA’s decision and obtain compensation. The Federation and FIFA raised preliminary objections, questioning CAS’s jurisdiction and the admissibility of the appeal. The CAS panel affirmed its jurisdiction under Article 66 of the FIFA Statutes, which designates CAS as the forum for resolving disputes involving FIFA and its members.
On the merits, Cruz Azul argued that FFCh’s medical staff negligently allowed the player to participate in a match despite his injury, exacerbating the condition. The club relied on medical expert testimony and press interviews but lacked comprehensive evidence, such as medical records or the player’s testimony. FFCh countered that the player had a prior history of Achilles tendonitis and consented to play, with his condition improving post-release. The Federation also highlighted Cruz Azul’s failure to secure adequate insurance coverage, as required by the RSTP.
FIFA maintained that its regulations exempt federations from liability for player injuries during international duty and noted that Cruz Azul had signed waivers preventing legal claims related to insurance. FIFA also argued the claim was time-barred under Swiss law, as it was filed more than a year after the club became aware of the injury. The CAS panel dismissed Cruz Azul’s appeal, concluding there was no evidence of negligence by FFCh or legal obligation on FIFA’s part to compensate the club. The decision reinforced the principle that clubs must assume the risks associated with releasing players for international duty and underscored the importance of comprehensive evidence in such disputes.
The case illustrates the challenges clubs face in navigating FIFA’s dispute resolution mechanisms and the role of CAS as the final arbiter in sports-related conflicts. It also highlights the evolving nature of FIFA’s policies, such as the Club Protection Program (CPP), which now compensates clubs for injuries during international duty, though this was not applicable at the time of the dispute. The ruling clarifies the limits of liability for federations and FIFA in player injury cases and emphasizes the need for clubs to adhere to regulatory requirements, including insurance obligations.