The case involves a legal dispute between ARIS FC, a Greek professional football club, and Spanish player Oriol Lozano Farrán, with FIFA as the second respondent. The dispute originated from an employment contract signed in 2010 between the player and ARIS FC Thessaloniki (referred to as the "Old Club"), which was terminated prematurely. The key issues revolved around the concept of "sporting succession," determining whether ARIS FC could be held liable for the Old Club's financial obligations, and the timeliness of the player's claim. The player sought unpaid salaries and compensation for early termination, totaling EUR 750,000, plus interest.
The Sole Arbitrator clarified that the "event giving rise to the dispute" for assessing time-barred claims in cases of club succession is not the contractual breach by the old club but the new club's affiliation date with its national federation. This is the moment when the player can initiate proceedings against the new club before FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC). The arbitrator emphasized that sporting succession is determined by factors such as the club's name, colors, fans, history, stadium, and roster, rather than legal or corporate continuity. Fraudulent practices or bankruptcy proceedings are not prerequisites for establishing sporting succession, meaning a new club can still be liable for the old club's debts even without such circumstances.
The arbitrator also addressed the creditor's (player's) duty to act diligently in pursuing claims. While creditors must take prompt legal action, the absence of a claim in bankruptcy proceedings does not automatically absolve the sporting successor of liability. However, disciplinary sanctions may not apply if the creditor fails to act diligently. Additionally, contractual penalties should only be reduced if deemed excessive, with judges balancing contractual freedom against fairness.
The case underscores the complexities of sporting succession in football, where continuity is assessed based on identity rather than legal structure. The arbitrator ruled that ARIS FC, as the sporting successor, could be held liable for the Old Club's unpaid salaries, provided the player had acted diligently in pursuing the claim. The decision highlights the importance of case-by-case analysis in such disputes, ensuring fairness while preventing abuse of the sporting succession concept.
The arbitrator rejected ARIS FC's arguments that the claim was time-barred, that it was not the sporting successor of the Old Club, and that the contractual penalty was excessive. The arbitrator upheld the FIFA DRC's decision, ordering ARIS FC to pay the player EUR 750,000 plus interest. The ruling reinforces the principle that successor clubs may inherit financial obligations from their predecessors under certain conditions, emphasizing the need for consistency and predictability in sports law. The case also illustrates the role of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in resolving disputes within the framework of FIFA regulations, supplemented by Swiss law where necessary.
Ultimately, the decision confirms the liability of ARIS FC as the sporting successor of the Old Club, highlighting the broader implications for football governance and financial accountability in cases involving club restructuring. The arbitrator's thorough analysis of sporting succession, contractual validity, and procedural diligence ensures a fair and equitable resolution to the dispute.