The case revolves around Cristian Javier Nasuti, an Argentinean professional football player, who appealed against AEK Athens FC and FIFA regarding the enforcement of a 2012 FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) decision. The DRC had ordered the original AEK Athens FC (Old AEK) to pay Nasuti €176,000 plus interest for unpaid wages. However, Old AEK was dissolved and disaffiliated from the Hellenic Football Federation (HFF) in 2013 due to bankruptcy, leading FIFA to close disciplinary proceedings as enforcement became impossible. A new entity, AEK Athens FC (New AEK), was incorporated in 2014, but FIFA determined it was not the sporting successor of Old AEK and thus not liable for the debt. Nasuti repeatedly requested FIFA to reopen the case, arguing New AEK was the successor, but FIFA upheld its 2016 decision in 2020, citing the legal principle of res judicata, which prevents re-litigating the same issue once a final decision has been made.
The principle of res judicata requires identical claims, the same parties, and the same facts and evidence. FIFA argued that Nasuti’s repeated requests did not present new evidence justifying reopening the case. Additionally, FIFA emphasized the principle of good faith, ensuring authorities act consistently and avoid contradictory decisions. The form of FIFA’s communications (e.g., letters) did not negate their status as binding decisions, as they contained rulings intended to produce legal effects. Nasuti appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), challenging FIFA’s refusal to reopen the case. The CAS panel upheld FIFA’s decision, affirming that res judicata applied, as the matter had been conclusively resolved in 2016 with no new evidence warranting reconsideration. The panel also noted that FIFA’s 2020 decision was a formal, appealable ruling, not merely informational.
The core issue was whether New AEK could be considered the sporting successor of Old AEK, making it liable for the debt. Nasuti argued that New AEK shared the same name, stadium, colors, and history, but the respondents countered that New AEK was a distinct legal entity with no connection to Old AEK’s liabilities. The HFF confirmed that Old AEK was dissolved and New AEK was a separate entity, starting in the lower divisions of Greek football without acquiring Old AEK’s assets or license. CAS referenced prior jurisprudence, including a similar case (CAS 2019/A/6436), which also dismissed claims of sporting succession. The panel concluded that New AEK was not liable for Old AEK’s obligations, as no legal or sporting succession had been established.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed Nasuti’s appeal, confirming that New AEK was not liable for Old AEK’s debt and that FIFA’s prior decisions were final and binding under the principles of res judicata and good faith. The case underscores the importance of legal finality in sports disputes and the need for parties to present new evidence if seeking to revisit closed matters. The decision also highlights the distinction between legal entities in sports governance, even when they share symbolic or historical attributes. The ruling reaffirmed that disciplinary sanctions lose their purpose if the debtor cannot comply, as in the case of Old AEK’s bankruptcy. The appeal process concluded with all requests dismissed, leaving FIFA’s original decision intact.