The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on October 7, 2020, in the cases of Yverdon Sport SA and FC Rapperswil-Jona 1928 AG against the Swiss Football Association (ASF). The dispute arose from the ASF's decision to terminate all amateur championships, including the Promotion League, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted the 2019/2020 season. The central issues revolved around the ASF's authority to make such decisions, procedural fairness, and the classification of leagues as professional or amateur under Swiss COVID-19 regulations. The CAS upheld the ASF's decision, ruling that the pandemic constituted a case of force majeure under Article 96 of the ASF Statutes, granting the ASF's Central Committee the power to act in unforeseen circumstances. The tribunal rejected claims that clubs had a right to be heard before such decisions, noting that general management decisions by the ASF do not require individual consultations under Swiss law.
The CAS clarified that a league is considered "primarily professional" only if more than half its clubs operate professionally. It found that the Promotion League did not meet this threshold, as only about 46.7% of its players were registered professionals, and many clubs operated on an amateur basis. The ASF's decision to classify the Promotion League as amateur was justified, as only the Super League and Challenge League were deemed professional under federal COVID-19 regulations. The tribunal emphasized that its role was not to reassess the ASF's decisions but to determine whether they violated applicable laws or statutes. It interpreted the term "end of season" to mean all matches must be played for promotions and relegations to be valid, which was impossible due to the pandemic.
The appellants argued that the ASF's decision violated competition law, abused its dominant position, and unfairly disadvantaged clubs like Yverdon Sport and Rapperswil-Jona, which had invested heavily in professional infrastructure. The CAS dismissed these claims, finding no anti-competitive intent or abuse of dominance, as the ASF's actions were motivated by public health concerns and sporting fairness. The tribunal acknowledged the financial and sporting harm to the appellants but concluded that the ASF's decision was proportionate and justified under the extraordinary circumstances.
The ruling reinforced the ASF's discretionary powers in crisis management while setting legal precedents on procedural fairness and statutory interpretation in sports governance. It highlighted the challenges of balancing health regulations with competitive integrity during unprecedented disruptions. The CAS ultimately dismissed the appeals, upholding the ASF's contested decision and affirming its authority to act in the broader interest of Swiss football. The decision underscored the need for flexibility and proportionality in sports governance during crises, even if individual clubs were adversely affected.