The case involves a complex legal dispute between Javier González López, a Spanish football coach, and Hapoel Tel Aviv FC, along with FIFA, centered on the enforcement of a prior arbitration award issued by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The dispute arose from González López's employment contract with Hapoel Tel Aviv FC, managed by Harel Holdings Ltd., which was terminated in 2015. González López filed a claim with CAS, which ruled in his favor in 2016, ordering Harel Holdings to pay him €507,551.85 plus interest. However, Harel Holdings failed to comply, and insolvency proceedings were initiated against the company in 2016. During these proceedings, Poalei Tel Aviv Holdings Ltd., operating under the Nissanov Group, acquired certain rights and assets of Harel Holdings and continued running the football club. González López sought to enforce the CAS award against the new management, arguing that Hapoel Tel Aviv FC was the sporting successor of Harel Holdings and thus liable for the debt.
The legal proceedings involved multiple layers, including jurisdictional disputes, the principle of res judicata, and the concept of sporting succession. González López filed claims with FIFA’s Players’ Status Committee (PSC) and Disciplinary Committee (DC), but both bodies declined jurisdiction, citing procedural and regulatory limitations. The DC's decision, dated 26 October 2020, was not appealed by González López, leading to arguments about the finality of that decision under the principle of res judicata. The case eventually returned to CAS, where the Sole Arbitrator, Prof. Ulrich Haas, addressed key legal issues, including whether the PSC had jurisdiction over the dispute and whether the claim was time-barred.
The Arbitrator clarified that res judicata, a principle under Swiss law, applies only to certain adjudicatory decisions, such as court rulings or true arbitral awards, and not to association tribunal decisions like those of FIFA’s DC. The Arbitrator also examined the relationship between enforcement proceedings under FIFA’s Disciplinary Code and main proceedings under the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), concluding that these proceedings involve different matters and procedural rules, making coordination via res judicata or lis pendens inappropriate. However, the Arbitrator emphasized the need for some form of coordination to prevent contradictory decisions.
On the issue of sporting succession, the Arbitrator ruled that a sporting successor assumes the procedural and substantive obligations of the original debtor, including ancillary rights like arbitration agreements. This principle applies regardless of whether the debt assumption is contractual or statutory. The Arbitrator also confirmed that parties may derogate from FIFA’s adjudicatory bodies in favor of arbitration, as stipulated in Article 22(1) of the RSTP.
The case highlighted the challenges of enforcing arbitration awards in football disputes, particularly when ownership changes and insolvency proceedings complicate liability. The Arbitrator ultimately dismissed González López’s appeal, upholding FIFA’s decision and rejecting all other motions for relief. The ruling underscored the importance of adhering to established legal principles and jurisdictional boundaries to ensure procedural integrity and avoid contradictory outcomes in sports arbitration. The case serves as a significant precedent on the enforceability of arbitration agreements and the binding nature of sporting succession in football disputes.