The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on 12 July 2019 in the case of KS Skënderbeu v. UEFA, addressing allegations of match-fixing by the Albanian football club. The case centered on UEFA's disciplinary actions against Skënderbeu, which included a ten-year ban from UEFA competitions and a €1,000,000 fine, based on reports from UEFA's Betting Fraud Detection System (BFDS). The BFDS identified suspicious betting patterns and on-field behavior in multiple matches involving Skënderbeu, including games against Crusaders, Dinamo Zagreb, Sporting Clube de Portugal, and Lokomotiv Moskva. The club contested the allegations, arguing lack of concrete evidence, procedural unfairness, and the severity of the sanctions.
The CAS panel, composed of José María Alonso Puig, Philippe Sands QC, and Michael Beloff QC, examined several legal principles, including tempus regit actum (the law at the time of the conduct applies) and lex mitior (the more lenient law applies if regulations change). The panel upheld UEFA's two-stage disciplinary process, which combines an immediate administrative exclusion with subsequent disciplinary sanctions, ruling it did not violate the ne bis in idem principle (double jeopardy) as the measures served distinct purposes. The panel also affirmed that anonymous witness statements, when corroborated and subject to safeguards like cross-examination, do not inherently violate due process.
Regarding the standard of proof, the panel applied the "comfortable satisfaction" standard, recognizing the challenges of proving match-fixing due to its covert nature and the limited investigative powers of sports bodies. The BFDS was deemed reliable, though the panel emphasized its findings must be supported by additional qualitative analysis. The panel dismissed Skënderbeu's arguments that UEFA failed to identify specific individuals involved, citing Article 8 of UEFA's Disciplinary Regulations, which holds clubs accountable for the actions of their members, officials, or players.
The panel reviewed four matches in detail, noting irregular betting patterns and suspicious on-field behavior, such as sudden odds drops and questionable player actions. Alternative explanations from Skënderbeu, like travel disruptions or racist incidents, were deemed insufficient to counter the evidence. The panel concluded UEFA met its burden of proof, demonstrating a consistent pattern of match-fixing.
On proportionality, the panel upheld the ten-year ban, citing the gravity of the offenses and precedents like the Pobeda case, where an eight-year ban was imposed for fixing two matches. The panel emphasized the need for stringent sanctions to preserve competition integrity. Ultimately, the CAS dismissed Skënderbeu's appeal, confirming UEFA's decision and underscoring the zero-tolerance approach to match-fixing in football.