The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on March 9, 2017, in the case between RFC Seraing and FIFA (TAS 2016/A/4490), addressing violations of FIFA's regulations prohibiting Third-Party Ownership (TPO) of players under Articles 18bis and 18ter of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTJ). The dispute centered on whether these regulations complied with European Union law, particularly regarding free movement and competition rules. The arbitral tribunal, composed of Bernard Foucher, Bernard Hanotiau, and Ruggero Stincardini, concluded that while the FIFA regulations restricted free movement of capital, workers, and services, they pursued legitimate objectives such as contract stability, club and player independence, integrity in football, fair competition, and transparency in player transfers. The restrictions were deemed proportionate, as they were limited and no reasonable alternatives existed to achieve these goals. The tribunal also found that the regulations did not unlawfully distort competition, as their primary aim was to regulate the transfer market for legitimate purposes rather than restrict competition.
RFC Seraing, a Belgian football club, had entered into a TPO agreement with Doyen Sports Investments in 2015, transferring economic rights of players in exchange for payments. FIFA's investigation led to disciplinary proceedings against the club for violating RSTJ rules. Despite RFC Seraing's delayed cooperation and initial denials, the club eventually provided the contested agreement. The case highlighted FIFA's regulatory authority over clubs and its enforcement mechanisms through the FIFA Transfer Matching System (TMS). The tribunal upheld FIFA's sanctions, reinforcing the legality of Articles 18bis and 18ter under both Swiss and EU law, given their alignment with fundamental legal principles and the absence of disproportionate restrictions.
RFC Seraing contested the decision, first appealing to FIFA's Appeals Committee, which upheld the original sanctions in January 2016. The club then took the case to CAS, arguing that FIFA's TPO ban was illegal under EU and Swiss law, citing rulings by the Spanish competition authority and requesting a suspension of sanctions pending further legal proceedings. The CAS panel rejected these requests, emphasizing that the arbitration focused narrowly on the appeal against FIFA's disciplinary decision, not the broader legality of the TPO ban.
The panel examined whether Articles 18bis and 18ter violated EU law, including freedoms of capital movement, worker mobility, and service provision under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It found that while the regulations restricted capital movements, they were non-discriminatory and justified by legitimate objectives such as preserving contract stability, club autonomy, and competition integrity. The panel dismissed claims that the ban violated competition law under Article 101 TFEU, noting that FIFA's measures aimed to regulate the transfer market rather than stifle competition. It also rejected arguments that the rules infringed on fundamental rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) or the Swiss Federal Constitution, as the appellant failed to demonstrate specific violations.
Regarding sanctions, RFC Seraing argued that a CHF 150,000 fine and a four-transfer-window ban on player registrations were disproportionate. The CAS panel acknowledged the transitional nature of the regulations and reduced the registration ban to three consecutive transfer periods, effective from the first registration period following the notification of its decision. The fine was upheld, as the panel found the sanctions justified given the club's multiple violations and the need to enforce FIFA's regulations.
The ruling affirmed FIFA's authority to regulate TPO practices and upheld the legitimacy of Articles 18bis and 18ter, reinforcing the importance of maintaining integrity and transparency in football transfers. The decision balanced regulatory enforcement with consideration of contextual circumstances, setting a precedent for future cases involving TPO disputes. The CAS panel's thorough analysis of legal, competitive, and ethical dimensions underscored the complexity of regulating third-party influence in football while aligning with broader legal frameworks.