The case involves a complex legal dispute between FC Red Bull Salzburg, UEFA, Arsenal FC, and Fenerbahçe Kulübü, centered around Fenerbahçe's eligibility to participate in the 2013/2014 UEFA Champions League (UCL) and Europa League (UEL) following a match-fixing scandal. The dispute arose when UEFA's Control and Disciplinary Body initially excluded Fenerbahçe from three UEFA competitions due to match-fixing activities involving its officials. This decision was later modified by the UEFA Appeals Body, reducing the exclusion to two competitions. Fenerbahçe appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and obtained a stay of execution, allowing the club to compete while the appeal was pending.
During the stay, Fenerbahçe was drawn against Salzburg in the UCL qualifying rounds. Salzburg lost the tie and subsequently protested, arguing Fenerbahçe was ineligible due to the initial exclusion decision. UEFA's Control and Disciplinary Body rejected Salzburg's protest as inadmissible, prompting Salzburg to appeal to CAS. The CAS panel addressed several legal issues, including the exhaustion of internal remedies, standing under Swiss law, and the nature of a stay of execution. The panel emphasized that a stay preserves a club's eligibility until a final decision is rendered, ensuring competition continuity.
Salzburg sought multiple reliefs, including overturning UEFA's decisions, declaring the match forfeited in their favor, and reinstatement into the UCL. They argued UEFA's handling of the case was discriminatory, citing instances where clubs eliminated by ineligible opponents were reinstated. UEFA defended its actions, stating the stay of execution made Fenerbahçe eligible at the time of the match and accusing Salzburg of forum shopping. Arsenal contested its inclusion as a respondent, arguing the dispute was solely between Salzburg and UEFA.
The CAS panel ultimately dismissed Salzburg's protest, ruling that Fenerbahçe was eligible to play during the stay and that the protest lacked legal basis. The panel clarified that Article 50.1(a) of UEFA's Disciplinary Regulations applies only to individual player ineligibility, not entire teams, and that administrative issues like sanctions do not qualify as "significant incidents" under Article 50.1(e). The decision underscored the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the temporary nature of stays of execution in maintaining competitive integrity.
The case highlights the procedural complexities of sports arbitration, particularly regarding interim measures and eligibility disputes. The panel's ruling reinforced that a stayed exclusion does not affect a club's eligibility during the appeal process, ensuring fairness and operational continuity in sports competitions. The final award, issued on 7 March 2014, upheld UEFA's decisions and dismissed Salzburg's claims, emphasizing the narrow procedural focus of CAS arbitrations and the need for clarity in UEFA's regulations to avoid future disputes.