The case involves Sivasspor Kulübü's appeal against UEFA's decision to declare the club ineligible for the 2014/2015 UEFA Europa League (UEL) due to alleged match-fixing activities. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel reviewed the case, focusing on evidence from Turkish criminal investigations, wiretaps, and court judgments, which implicated Sivasspor's president, board members, and players in attempts to influence the outcome of a match against Fenerbahçe. The panel clarified that Article 2.08 of the UEL Regulations, which establishes ineligibility for match-fixing, is an administrative measure aimed at protecting competition integrity rather than a punitive sanction. The burden of proof lay with UEFA, requiring a standard of "comfortable satisfaction" given the seriousness of the allegations.
The evidence revealed that Fenerbahçe officials, including its president, orchestrated a scheme to fix the match through intermediaries and bribes. Wiretapped conversations showed coded discussions about payments and instructions to players, including Sivasspor's goalkeeper, who was accused of underperforming. Turkish courts convicted several individuals involved, though some cases were later reconsidered due to procedural changes in Turkish law. The CAS panel found the evidence sufficient to establish Sivasspor's involvement, dismissing arguments that only the goalkeeper was implicated or that the club lacked direct benefit. The panel emphasized that UEFA's autonomy under Swiss law allows it to enforce strict liability, holding clubs accountable for their officials' and players' actions, regardless of fault.
The panel rejected Sivasspor's claim that prior CAS rulings on related cases (involving Fenerbahçe) should apply due to the principle of res judicata, as the legal grounds and parties differed. It also upheld the admissibility of wiretap evidence, noting that UEFA is not bound by national court decisions and can independently assess evidence in sports arbitration. The panel concluded that Sivasspor's ineligibility under Article 2.08 was justified and proportionate, as the club had agreed to these conditions by signing the UEL Admission Criteria Form. The decision reinforced UEFA's authority to safeguard competition integrity and highlighted the importance of combating match-fixing in football. The CAS dismissed Sivasspor's appeal, confirming UEFA's original ruling and underscoring the club's accountability for the actions of its members. The case sets a precedent for the enforcement of strict liability in match-fixing cases and the admissibility of diverse evidence in sports arbitration.