The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on September 24, 2014, in the dispute between Pro Duta FC and the PSSI Club Licensing Appeal Committee (CLAC) and the Football Association of Indonesia (PSSI). The case centered on the denial of a club license to Pro Duta FC, which prevented its participation in the national championship. The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Luigi Fumagalli, Ms. Sophie Dion, and Mr. Fabio Iudica, addressed several key legal issues. First, it confirmed CAS jurisdiction, ruling that jurisdiction is determined at the time the petition is filed and remains unaffected by subsequent changes, such as the creation of an internal arbitral tribunal by the association. Second, the panel held that if licensing regulations require reasons for denial but none are provided, an appeal cannot be dismissed on procedural grounds alone; the appeals body must also review the club’s entitlement to the license. Third, under Article R57 of the CAS Code, the panel may issue a new decision or refer the case back for further consideration, with a new decision preferred when all necessary elements are present for procedural efficiency. Fourth, the panel found that a simple letter expressing stadium availability does not meet the licensing requirement of a written contract, even if conditions mentioned in the letter are fulfilled.
The dispute arose against the backdrop of fragmentation in Indonesian football, with two competing leagues—the Indonesian Premier League (IPL) and the Indonesian Super League (ISL)—operating independently. Efforts to unify the leagues led to a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in 2012, aiming to establish a single top-tier league under PSSI’s jurisdiction. However, disputes during the transition culminated in Pro Duta FC’s license denial. The CAS panel emphasized the importance of adhering to licensing regulations and procedural fairness, ultimately ruling against Pro Duta FC due to its failure to provide a written stadium contract as required.
Pro Duta FC had argued that it met all licensing criteria, including financial and infrastructural requirements, and challenged the procedural validity of the PSSI’s decision-making process. The club contended that the licensor’s rejection was based on misunderstandings, such as the absence of a written stadium contract and alleged overdue payables, which it claimed were unfounded. The Respondents, however, maintained that the club failed to meet the necessary criteria, particularly the requirement for a bilateral stadium contract and complete financial documentation. They also argued that CAS lacked jurisdiction due to the establishment of a national arbitration tribunal by PSSI, though the panel rejected this claim, noting that the tribunal was not formally recognized until after the appeal was filed.
The CAS panel’s decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness and strict compliance with licensing regulations. While it set aside the original decision due to procedural flaws, it ultimately dismissed Pro Duta FC’s request for a license, affirming that the club had not met the mandatory infrastructural criteria. The case highlights the complexities of sports governance and the legal mechanisms available for clubs to challenge licensing decisions, as well as the CAS’s role in ensuring compliance with established rules and procedures. The ruling reinforced the principle that jurisdiction is determined at the time of filing and that procedural irregularities do not automatically invalidate substantive outcomes.