The case CAS 2016/A/4581 involves a complex dispute between Apollon Football Ltd., a Cypriot football club, and Partizan FC, a Serbian football club, with FIFA as the second respondent. The conflict arose from an agreement dated August 18, 2014, in which Apollon purchased 50% of the economic rights to a player from Partizan for €1.2 million. The agreement included clauses related to future transfers, profit-sharing, and dispute resolution under FIFA regulations and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Key issues addressed by the CAS panel included whether FIFA had jurisdiction over disputes between clubs from different associations, whether the CAS could rule on the merits as a first-instance tribunal if FIFA declined jurisdiction, and whether FIFA or the CAS should decide on sanctions for overdue payments under Article 12bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP).
The panel concluded that FIFA had jurisdiction over disputes between clubs from different associations unless explicitly excluded under Article 22(f) of the RSTP. Since FIFA had declined jurisdiction, the CAS, acting under Article R57 of its code, could rule on the merits as a first-instance tribunal if neither party requested a referral back to FIFA. However, the panel emphasized that FIFA should be the first-instance body to decide on disciplinary sanctions under Article 12bis RSTP for overdue payments, with the CAS only reviewing such decisions on appeal.
The dispute escalated when Benfica made an offer of €5 million for the player’s transfer in April 2015, along with a five-year contract exceeding the salary threshold specified in the agreement. Partizan failed to respond to the offer, leading Apollon to demand compensation under the agreement’s terms. Apollon claimed Partizan’s inaction constituted a breach, entitling them to 50% of the transfer fee plus interest, totaling €2.4 million, with a potential increase to €2.64 million if unpaid by a specified deadline. Partizan acknowledged the debt but requested a delay, citing potential better offers. Apollon agreed to the extension but reserved the right to enforce the original claim if no payment was made. When Partizan failed to comply, Apollon filed a claim with FIFA’s Players’ Status Committee (PSC) on August 13, 2015, seeking €2.75 million plus interest. The PSC ruled the claim inadmissible on January 16, 2016, stating it lacked jurisdiction as the dispute did not involve a player transfer under FIFA’s RSTP.
Apollon appealed to the CAS on May 4, 2016, arguing that the FIFA PSC had jurisdiction under Article 22(f) of the RSTP, as the dispute involved clubs from different associations and was transfer-related. Partizan countered that the PSC correctly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, as the dispute was not transfer-related, and denied any breach of contract. FIFA supported Partizan’s position but paradoxically suggested that CAS could adjudicate the merits under FIFA Statutes and the parties’ agreement.
The CAS panel confirmed its jurisdiction under Article R47 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration and deemed the appeal admissible. It ruled that the dispute fell within FIFA’s jurisdiction under Article 22(f) of the RSTP, as the agreement was transfer-related and the parties had agreed to submit disputes to FIFA and CAS. The panel found Partizan in breach of its contractual obligations, ordering it to pay Apollon €2.5 million plus 10% annual interest from August 1, 2015. However, the panel deferred the decision on sanctions under Article 12bis to FIFA, emphasizing that disciplinary matters should first be handled by FIFA before any CAS review.
The case highlights the importance of contractual clarity in football transfers and the procedural hierarchy in resolving disputes, reinforcing FIFA’s role in disciplinary matters while allowing CAS to adjudicate disputes directly when FIFA declines jurisdiction. The decision underscores the interplay between FIFA’s regulations and national laws, as well as the need for precise contractual terms in international football transactions.