The case revolves around a dispute involving Dutch footballer Civard Sprockel, FIFA, and two Bulgarian football clubs, PFC CSKA Sofia (the Old Club) and PFC CSKA-Sofia (the New Club). Sprockel sought enforcement of a 2015 FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) decision awarding him unpaid wages from the Old Club, which had been declared insolvent in 2015. FIFA suspended disciplinary proceedings against the Old Club due to its insolvency, prompting Sprockel to request action against the New Club, which he argued was the sporting successor of the Old Club. FIFA declined, stating it could not proceed, leading Sprockel to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS panel ruled that FIFA's communication, though informal, constituted an appealable decision because it affected Sprockel's legal rights by denying his enforcement request. The panel emphasized that decisions need not be formal to have legal effects, provided they demonstrate an intention to rule on a matter. It also clarified that Sprockel did not need to initiate new proceedings before the FIFA DRC, as the succession issue could be addressed within the existing disciplinary framework. The panel referred the case back to FIFA to determine whether the New Club was indeed the Old Club's successor, highlighting the procedural complexities of enforcing claims against insolvent clubs.
The dispute deepened as Sprockel and FIFA argued that the New Club, despite claiming to be a separate entity, was effectively the same as the Old Club, citing shared branding, history, and operational continuity. The New Club denied liability, asserting it had no legal or financial ties to the Old Club and had acquired its assets legally through insolvency proceedings. The Bulgarian Football Union (BFU) confirmed the Old Club's bankruptcy and disaffiliation but recognized the New Club's continuity in practice.
The CAS proceedings included witness testimonies and extensive legal arguments. Sprockel contended that the Old Club's bankruptcy was a sham to evade debts, while the New Club maintained its independence and compliance with Bulgarian insolvency law. The panel ultimately dismissed the appeal, ruling that the New Club was not liable for the Old Club's debts, as no prior FIFA DRC decision had established successor liability. It underscored the importance of adhering to national insolvency laws and equitable treatment of creditors.
The case highlights broader issues in football governance, including financial fair play, creditor rights, and the challenges of club succession. It underscores the limitations of FIFA's jurisdiction in overriding national bankruptcy proceedings and the need for clear procedural frameworks to address such disputes. The CAS decision reaffirmed the principle that informal communications from governing bodies can have binding legal effects while emphasizing fairness and procedural justice in resolving financial claims in sports.