The case CAS 2018/A/5808 AC Milan v. UEFA involved an appeal by AC Milan against UEFA's decision to exclude the club from participating in UEFA competitions for two seasons due to breaches of Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel, composed of Prof. Ulrich Haas, Judge Pierre Muller, and Mr. Mark Hovell, addressed procedural and substantive issues, emphasizing that the appealability of a decision depends on its substance and impact rather than its form. The panel ruled that even preliminary decisions, such as the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) Chief Investigator's referral of the case to the Adjudicatory Chamber without offering a settlement, could be reviewed when appealing final disciplinary sanctions.
The dispute arose from AC Milan's financial instability following a change in ownership in 2017, which led to significant debt and concerns about the club's ability to meet FFP requirements. The CFCB Investigatory Chamber rejected AC Milan's request for a voluntary agreement, citing insufficient financial guarantees and doubts about the club's business plan, particularly its reliance on projected revenues from China. The CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber subsequently imposed a two-season exclusion from UEFA competitions and a fine. AC Milan appealed, arguing that UEFA's decision violated principles of equal treatment, legality, and competition law, and that a settlement agreement would have been a fairer alternative.
The CAS panel examined the admissibility of the appeal, jurisdictional issues, and the merits of the case. It confirmed that CAS had full jurisdiction to review the facts and law, though it generally respects well-reasoned decisions by sports federations. The panel found that the CFCB's refusal to offer a settlement was not separately appealable, as it did not materially affect AC Milan's legal position. On substantive grounds, the panel upheld the CFCB's determination that AC Milan breached the break-even requirement but criticized the Adjudicatory Chamber for not independently assessing updated facts, such as the club's improved financial situation under new ownership by Elliott Management. The panel also noted procedural shortcomings, including UEFA's failure to fully disclose details of settlement agreements with other clubs, which could have supported AC Milan's claim of unequal treatment.
Ultimately, the CAS panel annulled the two-season exclusion sanction, deeming it disproportionate, and referred the case back to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber for a reassessment of the facts and a more proportionate disciplinary measure. The panel emphasized the need for procedural fairness and transparency while respecting UEFA's discretion in enforcing financial regulations. The ruling clarified that settlements and sanctions serve the same purpose under FFP rules and that clubs have no automatic right to a settlement, as the choice of enforcement mechanism remains within UEFA's discretion. The case highlighted the complexities of financial compliance in football and the balance between regulatory oversight and clubs' competitive ambitions.