The case revolves around a dispute between Red Tiger Football Club (Appellant) and Fenerbahçe SK (Respondent) concerning the solidarity contribution owed from the transfer of Nigerian player E. from Spartak Moscow to Fenerbahçe in 2013 for EUR 13,000,000. Red Tiger FC claimed entitlement to a portion of this amount, asserting it had trained the player between 2002 and 2005. The claim was initially filed with FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which rejected it in August 2018 due to insufficient evidence and ordered Red Tiger FC to pay CHF 25,000 in costs. Red Tiger FC appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking to overturn the FIFA ruling and halt the cost payment. The CAS proceedings involved procedural debates, including whether the case should be heard by a sole arbitrator or a panel. The CAS President appointed sole arbitrator H. Pat Barriscale, and both parties agreed to a decision based on written submissions without a hearing.
The core legal issue centered on the burden of proof under Swiss law, requiring the party asserting a right to prove the supporting facts. Red Tiger FC had to demonstrate its entitlement to the solidarity contribution by providing evidence of its role in training the player. The case was complicated by competing claims from other clubs, including Delta Force FC and the Nigerian Football Federation (NFF). Red Tiger FC submitted various documents, such as undated photographs, an identification document, and a handwritten team sheet, but these lacked context and substantiation. The NFF issued conflicting International Player Passports (IPPs), with one in September 2016 indicating the player was registered with Red Tiger FC from 2001 to 2005 and Delta Force FC thereafter, and another in March 2018 stating the player was with Red Tiger FC from 1998 to 2007. Red Tiger FC relied on the latter, but the DRC rejected it as the investigation had closed.
Red Tiger FC argued the DRC’s decision was flawed, citing contradictory player passports and Fenerbahçe’s alleged concealment of a 2013 letter from the player denying he played for Delta Force FC. They sought recognition of the March 2018 IPP as authentic and discharge of the CHF 25,000 costs. Fenerbahçe countered that the DRC rightly rejected the claim due to insufficient evidence and inconsistencies, noting Red Tiger FC’s attorney represented multiple claimants with contradictory information. They argued the March 2018 IPP did not resolve the confusion, as it was the eighth passport issued since 2013, and Red Tiger FC was not included in earlier versions.
The Sole Arbitrator emphasized the burden of proof principle under Article 8 of the Swiss Civil Code, requiring the party asserting a claim to provide convincing evidence. CAS jurisprudence reinforced this, stating parties must actively prove their allegations. The Arbitrator found Red Tiger FC’s evidence insufficient, as they failed to provide clear, authenticated documentation or a statement from the player. The NFF’s 2014 letter admitting a lack of conclusive evidence further undermined the appeal. Given the inconsistencies and failure to meet the burden of proof, the Arbitrator dismissed the appeal, upholding the FIFA DRC’s decision and rejecting all other motions for relief. The ruling underscores the importance of clear, substantiated evidence in sports-related disputes and the procedural requirements for appeals before CAS.