The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upheld UEFA's decision to declare Klubi Sportiv Skenderbeu ineligible for the 2016/2017 UEFA Champions League due to the club's involvement in match-fixing activities. The case stemmed from allegations that Skenderbeu manipulated numerous matches, including UEFA Champions League, Europa League, and domestic fixtures, based on irregular betting patterns detected by UEFA's Betting Fraud Detection System (BFDS). The BFDS identified suspicious activity in over 50 matches involving the club, with betting anomalies and on-field incidents suggesting manipulation. UEFA's two-stage process for addressing match-fixing was central to the case: an initial administrative exclusion to protect competition integrity, followed by potential disciplinary sanctions requiring concrete evidence. The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators Manfred Nan, Massimo Coccia, and José J. Pintó, examined the evidence under the "comfortable satisfaction" standard, a threshold higher than the balance of probability but lower than beyond reasonable doubt.
The panel reviewed specific matches where Skenderbeu's performances aligned with suspicious betting patterns. For instance, in a match against Crusaders FC, erratic defending in the final minutes coincided with unusual betting activity, raising integrity concerns. Similar patterns were observed in matches against NK Dinamo Zagreb and Sporting Clube de Portugal, where illogical betting behavior and questionable on-field actions suggested premeditated manipulation. The club argued that the BFDS reports were insufficient alone to prove match-fixing and that any anomalies could be attributed to individual players. However, the panel dismissed these claims, noting that UEFA regulations hold clubs accountable for their players' actions. The club also contested the jurisdiction of the UEFA Appeals Body, asserting that the decision should have been made by UEFA's executive body. The panel rejected this argument, confirming that UEFA followed its regulatory framework correctly.
The panel emphasized the distinction between administrative measures, which aim to safeguard competition integrity, and disciplinary sanctions, which require proof of specific regulatory breaches. Article 4.02 of the UEFA Champions League Regulations allows UEFA to exclude clubs involved in match-fixing without needing to prove intent or direct culpability. The panel found that the evidence, including BFDS reports, video footage, and public perception, met the comfortable satisfaction standard, justifying Skenderbeu's exclusion. The decision underscored UEFA's commitment to maintaining fair play and public trust in football competitions. The CAS ruling reinforced the principle that clubs implicated in match-fixing, even indirectly, can face severe consequences to preserve the sport's credibility. The panel dismissed all further appeals, confirming the club's ineligibility for the 2016/2017 season and upholding UEFA's authority to take decisive action against match-fixing.