The case involves Eskişehirspor Kulübü, a Turkish football club, appealing against a UEFA decision that declared it ineligible to participate in the 2014/2015 UEFA Europa League (UEL) due to match-fixing allegations. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel addressed several legal issues, including the admissibility of evidence, the nature of UEFA's ineligibility measure, and the club's liability for the actions of its officials. The panel ruled that UEFA's ineligibility measure under Article 2.08 of the UEL Regulations was administrative, not disciplinary, aimed at protecting competition integrity rather than punishing the club. The panel emphasized UEFA's zero-tolerance policy toward match-fixing, extending the scope of prohibited activities to include third-party bonuses and other indirect influences on match outcomes.
The case stemmed from match-fixing allegations involving Eskişehirspor's coach and player during the 2010/2011 season, particularly in matches against Fenerbahçe and Trabzonspor. Turkish criminal courts convicted the coach and player, citing wiretaps, bank records, and witness testimonies as evidence. Although the Turkish Football Federation (TFF) initially cleared the club, UEFA deemed it ineligible based on the broader implications of the case. The club argued it was unaware of the misconduct and had terminated the contracts of the implicated individuals, positioning itself as a victim rather than a perpetrator. However, the panel rejected this argument, stating that UEFA's regulations hold clubs strictly liable for the actions of their officials, regardless of the club's direct involvement or culpability.
The panel upheld UEFA's decision, reinforcing the automatic nature of the ineligibility measure and dismissing the club's requests for mitigating circumstances or a probationary period. The ruling highlighted the distinction between administrative measures, which focus on competition integrity, and disciplinary sanctions, which involve punitive actions. The panel also clarified that evidence inadmissible in criminal courts, such as wiretaps, could still be considered in sports arbitration, provided it did not violate fundamental procedural values. The decision underscored UEFA's authority to enforce strict integrity standards and the importance of maintaining public trust in football competitions.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed Eskişehirspor's appeal, confirming its ineligibility for the 2014/2015 UEL. The case set a precedent for the strict application of UEFA regulations in match-fixing cases, emphasizing the zero-tolerance approach to activities that undermine fair play and competition integrity. The ruling also clarified the legal principles governing administrative measures in sports, distinguishing them from disciplinary sanctions and reinforcing the autonomy of sports organizations in upholding their rules. The decision reflects the broader challenges of addressing match-fixing in football, balancing legal fairness with the need to protect the sport's integrity.