The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on a case between FC Petrolul Ploiesti and UEFA concerning violations of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play (FFP) Regulations. The dispute centered on whether FC Petrolul had improperly excluded a third-party entity, the "Lupii Galbeni 2012" Association, from its financial reporting perimeter to avoid UEFA's financial monitoring requirements. UEFA's Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) found that the club had overdue payables and failed to include the Association's financial obligations in its reporting, violating Articles 65 and 66 of the UEFA FFP Regulations. The club argued that the Association was independent and thus outside its reporting perimeter, but UEFA and later CAS ruled that the Association's financial commitments were integral to the club's compensation structure and should have been disclosed.
The CAS established key legal principles, including that the reporting perimeter must encompass all entities responsible for employee compensation, including third parties contractually obligated to pay performance bonuses. An entity may only be excluded if it is "immaterial," meaning it has negligible influence on the club's finances, a narrow exception with the burden of proof lying with the club. The CAS emphasized that clubs cannot transfer obligations to third parties to evade financial monitoring, as this undermines the objectives of the FFP Regulations. The ruling also clarified that CAS can only review sanctions if they are evidently and grossly disproportionate, and a combined sanction—a reasonable fine and potential exclusion from future competitions—is appropriate to deter violations without excessively harming the club's finances.
The factual background revealed that FC Petrolul had established the Association in 2012, which later entered into a cooperation contract with the City of Ploiesti to fund player and staff bonuses. The club had overdue payables of EUR 519,000, including debts to employees, social/tax authorities, and other clubs. The CFCB imposed sanctions, including exclusion from UEFA competitions for three seasons unless overdue payables were settled by 31 January 2014, a EUR 50,000 fine, and procedural costs. The club appealed to CAS, contesting the inclusion of the Association in its financial reporting and arguing the sanctions were disproportionate. CAS dismissed the appeal, upholding UEFA's decision and reinforcing the importance of transparency and compliance with financial fair play regulations.
The case serves as a precedent for how UEFA and CAS interpret and enforce financial reporting requirements, deterring clubs from engaging in circumvention tactics. The ruling highlighted the broader objectives of the FFP Regulations, such as ensuring financial discipline, protecting creditors, and maintaining the integrity of competitions. The CAS found the sanctions proportionate, noting that the combined penalty of a fine and potential exclusion was necessary to deter non-compliance. The decision underscored the need for clubs to adhere to financial discipline and avoid attempts to bypass regulatory requirements, ensuring the long-term sustainability of European football.