The case involves a dispute before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) between Sporting Clube de Braga (the Appellant) and Club Dynamo Kyiv and Gerson Alencar de Lima Junior (the Respondents). The dispute originated from FIFA disciplinary proceedings initiated after the Appellant and the Player failed to comply with a prior CAS award issued on 22 January 2015, which ordered the Player to pay €1,299,255 to Dynamo Kyiv, with Sporting Clube de Braga jointly liable for the payment. FIFA's Disciplinary Committee found the Appellant and the Player guilty of non-compliance, imposing a fine of CHF 15,000 and granting a 60-day grace period to settle the debt. Failure to comply would result in potential point deductions for Sporting Clube de Braga in domestic competitions and further disciplinary measures.
The Appellant challenged FIFA's decision before CAS, naming both Dynamo Kyiv and the Player as Respondents. FIFA argued that it should be the sole respondent in disciplinary proceedings, as such cases aim to enforce compliance with FIFA's rules and decisions, not to resolve financial disputes between parties. The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators from Greece, Portugal, and the Netherlands, examined procedural issues, including the standing of the Respondents to be sued. Under Swiss law, a party must have a direct stake in the dispute to be named as a respondent. FIFA contended that only it had standing in disciplinary matters, as the enforcement of its decisions is an internal interest, not a dispute between the original parties.
The procedural history included the Appellant's failure to pay the fine, leading to FIFA's disciplinary sanctions. The CAS proceedings involved the Appellant's appeal, the Respondents' failure to nominate an arbitrator, and subsequent requests to dismiss the appeal on jurisdictional grounds. The CAS Court Office rejected the dismissal request, emphasizing the applicability of procedural rules under the CAS Code. The Panel clarified that FIFA disciplinary proceedings are intended to protect FIFA's interests, ensuring compliance with its rules and decisions. Consequently, in an appeal against a FIFA disciplinary decision, only FIFA has standing to be sued, not the opposing party from a prior financial dispute.
The Panel found that the appeal filed by Sporting Clube de Braga was incorrectly directed against Dynamo Kyiv and the Player, who were not involved in the FIFA disciplinary proceedings. Since these parties lacked standing to be sued, the appeal was rejected. The CAS ultimately dismissed the appeal, confirming the FIFA Disciplinary Committee's decision dated 15 March 2017, and rejected all other motions or requests for relief. The ruling underscores the importance of correctly identifying the proper respondent in legal proceedings, particularly in cases involving disciplinary actions by sports governing bodies. The case highlights the distinction between disciplinary enforcement by FIFA and financial disputes between clubs and players, reinforcing FIFA's role as the sole respondent in disciplinary appeals to ensure compliance with its regulations.