The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on November 26, 2015, in the case between Panathinaikos FC and UEFA & Olympiakos FC (CAS 2015/A/4151), addressing Olympiakos' eligibility for the 2015/16 UEFA Champions League amid match-fixing allegations involving its majority owner, Evangelos Marinakis. The dispute arose when Olympiakos, having won the Greek Super League, qualified for the Champions League group stage. Panathinaikos, the league's runner-up, challenged UEFA's provisional admission of Olympiakos, arguing that Olympiakos should be disqualified and replaced by them due to the allegations. The CAS panel, composed of Mark Hovell, Manfred Nan, and Jan Räker, examined key legal issues, including standing to appeal, the distinction between admission and competition phases, and the interpretation of UEFA Champions League Regulations (UCLR).
The panel ruled that Panathinaikos lacked standing to appeal under Article 4.08 of the UCLR, which governs club replacement in case of disqualification. It emphasized that the competition phase had already begun, rendering Article 4.08 inapplicable beyond the admission phase. Additionally, the panel found that Panathinaikos was not "directly affected" by the decision, as its interest in preserving competition integrity was insufficient to grant standing. The panel also rejected Panathinaikos' argument under Article 81.01 of the UCLR, stating that standing should be limited to clubs directly replacing an excluded team, not those potentially benefiting from a redraw or emergency decision.
The case highlighted the complexities of sports governance, particularly regarding match-fixing allegations and procedural fairness. Panathinaikos contended that UEFA should have disqualified Olympiakos under Article 4.02 of the UCLR, which allows UEFA to declare a club ineligible if "comfortably satisfied" of its involvement in match-fixing. Panathinaikos presented evidence from Greek investigations, including the Koreas Report, to support its claim. However, UEFA and Olympiakos countered that the evidence was insufficient to meet the "comfortable satisfaction" standard and argued that Panathinaikos lacked standing, having been eliminated from the competition earlier.
The panel upheld UEFA's decision, concluding that Panathinaikos failed to demonstrate it would automatically replace Olympiakos under Article 4.08. It noted that once the competition began, replacements were handled by the UEFA Emergency Panel, which had discretion to minimize disruption. Historical precedents, such as the exclusion of Fenerbahçe and Beşiktaş, showed that replacements were often determined by draw, not league standings. The panel dismissed Panathinaikos' appeal, affirming the UEFA Appeals Body's decision and rejecting all further claims. The ruling reinforced the principle that competition organizers bear primary responsibility for safeguarding integrity, while clubs must demonstrate direct impact to challenge eligibility decisions. The case underscored the challenges of balancing regulatory enforcement, procedural fairness, and competition integrity in sports governance.