The case involves Iván Bolado Palacios, a professional football player, who filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against FIFA, the Bulgarian Football Union (BFU), and PFC CSKA Sofia. The dispute arose from unpaid wages and compensation awarded to Bolado by a previous CAS decision in 2017, which ordered the original club, PFC CSKA AD Sofia, to pay him €72,000 in unpaid wages and €200,000 for breach of contract, plus interest. When the club failed to comply, Bolado requested FIFA to initiate disciplinary proceedings under Article 64 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code. However, FIFA declined, citing ongoing insolvency proceedings involving the club.
Bolado argued that FIFA’s inaction constituted a denial of justice, as the club’s insolvency should not prevent disciplinary measures. He sought CAS intervention to enforce the award, including sanctions like point deductions or transfer bans against the club, and compensation for delays. FIFA countered that its disciplinary authority was superseded by Bulgarian bankruptcy law and that the current legal entity running the club was distinct from the insolvent original club. The BFU and PFC CSKA Sofia also contested CAS jurisdiction, arguing that Bolado had not exhausted internal remedies and that his claims targeted the wrong entity.
The sole arbitrator, Mark Hovell, examined whether FIFA’s refusal to act was an appealable decision and whether Bolado had followed proper procedural steps. The arbitrator ruled that FIFA’s communications did not constitute a final decision, as they indicated an ongoing investigation rather than a definitive refusal. He also noted that CAS jurisprudence requires players to first establish a successor club’s liability through FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) before seeking disciplinary action. Since Bolado had not pursued this route, his appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The case highlights the challenges players face when clubs enter insolvency and the procedural hurdles in enforcing awards against successor entities. The arbitrator emphasized the need to balance a party’s right to challenge injustices with adherence to established legal channels. While sympathetic to Bolado’s situation, the ruling reinforced that disciplinary measures must follow regulatory procedures, and CAS cannot bypass FIFA’s internal processes. The dismissal underscored the limitations of sports arbitration in cases involving insolvency and the importance of exhausting all remedies before appealing to CAS. The outcome serves as a reminder of the complexities in enforcing financial claims against clubs undergoing financial restructuring and the interplay between sports governance and national legal frameworks.