The case involves a legal dispute between Basketball Club Ticha (New Club) and the Fédération Internationale de Basketball (FIBA), along with player Aleksandar Andrejevic, concerning the extension of sanctions from an older club, BC Cherno More Port Varna (Old Club), to the New Club. The dispute arose after the Old Club failed to honor a Basketball Arbitral Tribunal (BAT) award requiring it to pay over €20,000 to Andrejevic, leading FIBA to impose a registration ban. FIBA extended this ban to the New Club under Article 3-300 of its Internal Regulations, arguing the New Club was a continuation of the Old Club. The New Club appealed this decision, contesting the extension of sanctions and monetary liabilities.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) conducted a de novo review, examining the case anew without deference to prior decisions. The key issue was whether FIBA had established sufficient factual or sporting linkages between the two clubs to justify extending the sanctions. The New Club argued it was a distinct entity, while FIBA pointed to similarities in branding, player composition, and public perception as evidence of continuity. The CAS Sole Arbitrator emphasized that disciplinary sanctions must be based on clear evidence of connection, not just superficial similarities.
Procedurally, the New Club claimed its right to be heard was violated, as FIBA’s regulations explicitly granted this right to the original club but not the successor club. The Arbitrator noted this discrepancy but concluded the New Club’s rights were satisfied through the FIBA Appeals Panel and CAS proceedings. On the merits, the Arbitrator found the FIBA Decision ambiguous, as it mentioned joint and several liability for monetary obligations while ostensibly extending a registration ban. However, the context suggested the intent was to extend the ban, not impose financial liability.
The Arbitrator ultimately upheld the FIBA Appeals Panel’s decision, ruling that the New Club’s branding, public perception, and failure to dissociate itself from the Old Club created sufficient linkage to justify the sanction extension. Factors like shared players and location were deemed less relevant, while the nearly identical names and uniforms reinforced the impression of continuity. The decision underscored the importance of upholding contractual obligations in basketball and preventing clubs from evading liabilities through rebranding.
The case highlights broader issues in sports governance, particularly the balance between legal formalities and factual realities in enforcing sanctions. It also clarifies the limited role of equitable principles in disciplinary proceedings and the need for regulatory clarity in addressing successor entities. The ruling serves as a precedent for how sporting bodies should apply disciplinary measures, ensuring fairness and accountability while maintaining the integrity of contractual obligations in professional sports.