The case involves a legal dispute between Persepolis Football Club and Rizespor Futbol Yatirimlari, which was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The conflict arose from a contractual disagreement involving a player who signed contracts with both clubs. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) ruled that Persepolis and the player were jointly liable to pay Rizespor €789,500 in compensation for breach of contract, along with interest. Additionally, Persepolis was banned from registering new players for two consecutive registration periods. Persepolis appealed this decision to CAS, arguing that it was unaware the player had already signed with Rizespor and that the Rizespor contract was conditional on the player’s International Transfer Certificate (ITC) being issued, which never occurred.
The CAS panel addressed several key legal issues, emphasizing that FIFA alone has the authority to impose disciplinary sanctions on its members or affiliates for violations of its regulations. Other football clubs lack this disciplinary power. The panel clarified that standing to be sued depends on whether the respondent has a personal obligation or interest in the disputed right. In appeals against FIFA disciplinary sanctions, only FIFA has standing to be sued, not the opposing party in the underlying financial dispute. The panel noted that FIFA’s disciplinary proceedings are designed to ensure compliance with its rules and decisions, making it the necessary respondent in such cases.
The panel ruled that if FIFA is not properly summoned as a respondent in an appeal challenging its disciplinary sanctions, the appeal must be dismissed. This cannot be remedied by a settlement agreement between the clubs, as they lack the authority to alter FIFA’s disciplinary measures. In this case, since FIFA was not named as a respondent in Persepolis’s appeal, the CAS panel dismissed the appeal. The panel also rejected Persepolis’s argument that the Rizespor contract was conditional on the ITC, as the evidence did not support this claim.
The factual background revealed that the player had signed contracts with both clubs. Rizespor claimed he breached their agreement by signing with Persepolis, while Persepolis argued it acted in good faith. The FIFA DRC found the player and Persepolis liable for inducing the breach and imposed financial and sporting sanctions. The CAS panel upheld the FIFA DRC’s decision, emphasizing the importance of procedural correctness in disciplinary appeals and the exclusive authority of FIFA in such matters. The case underscores the necessity of involving FIFA as a respondent in appeals against its disciplinary sanctions to ensure a valid legal challenge.
The parties later reached a settlement agreement regarding the financial compensation, rendering that aspect of the appeal moot. However, Persepolis continued to contest the sporting sanctions, asserting that it did not induce the player to breach his contract and that FIFA, not Rizespor, was the proper party to address the sanctions. The panel concluded that only FIFA, as the governing body with disciplinary authority, has standing to be sued in appeals against sporting sanctions. Rizespor, as another football club, lacks the power to impose or revoke such sanctions and therefore cannot be the proper respondent. This aligns with prior CAS rulings, which emphasize that disciplinary proceedings primarily protect FIFA’s interests in ensuring compliance with its regulations.
The panel dismissed Persepolis’s appeal due to procedural shortcomings and the absence of FIFA as a respondent. The decision reinforces the principle that only the sanctioning body (FIFA) can be the correct respondent in appeals involving disciplinary measures. The case highlights the complexities of contractual disputes in football, particularly concerning unilateral terminations, joint liability of clubs, and the enforcement of sporting sanctions. The settlement agreement between the parties partially resolved the financial dispute, but the appeal process continued regarding the broader implications of the FIFA DRC’s decision. The final ruling confirmed the original sanctions and rejected all other relief requests due to FIFA’s absence as a respondent. The overarching conclusion is that failure to name FIFA as a respondent in disciplinary appeals results in dismissal, as the respondent clubs or players lack standing to be sued in such matters.