The case involves FC Hamrun Spartans, a Maltese football club, challenging UEFA's decision to declare it ineligible for the 2021/22 UEFA Champions League due to past involvement in match-fixing. The dispute arose from a 2013 sanction by the Malta Football Association (MFA), which imposed a five-year ban on the club from international competitions after its officials and players were found guilty of influencing match outcomes. The club admitted guilt and did not appeal the MFA's decision, which included lifetime bans for those involved. When Hamrun Spartans qualified for the 2021/22 Champions League, UEFA invoked Article 4.02 of its Champions League Regulations (UCLR), which mandates exclusion for clubs involved in match-fixing. UEFA's Control, Ethics, and Disciplinary Body (CEDB) and later the Appeals Body upheld the decision, declaring the club ineligible.
The club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the MFA's five-year ban had already served the purpose of Article 4.02, rendering UEFA's additional one-year sanction disproportionate. The club also highlighted its governance reforms and financial restitution efforts. UEFA countered that its regulations allow independent enforcement of eligibility criteria, irrespective of national sanctions, and emphasized the need to maintain competition integrity. The CAS Sole Arbitrator examined procedural and substantive issues, including the admissibility of the appeal and the interpretation of UEFA's rules. The arbitrator confirmed that UEFA had standing to enforce its regulations and that the appeal was filed within the required timeframe.
On the merits, the arbitrator found that the MFA's ban did not explicitly prevent the club from participating in UEFA competitions, as it had not qualified during the ban period. The UCLR's Article 4.02 required an active disqualification from UEFA competitions, which the MFA's sanction did not fulfill. The arbitrator upheld UEFA's decision, noting that its disciplinary power is specific to its competitions and that the one-year ban was justified. The ruling underscored UEFA's autonomy under Swiss law and the importance of objective rule interpretation. While acknowledging the club's rehabilitation efforts, the arbitrator emphasized that UEFA's regulations did not provide for a time limit on sanctions, suggesting future revisions to address such cases.
The case reaffirmed UEFA's authority to regulate its competitions and clarified the conditions under which past disciplinary actions affect eligibility. The CAS dismissed the appeal, upholding UEFA's decision to exclude Hamrun Spartans from the 2021/22 Champions League. The outcome highlighted the tension between punitive measures and rehabilitation, as well as the interplay between national and international sporting governance. The decision set a precedent for similar cases, reinforcing the principle that clubs must comply with UEFA's integrity rules regardless of prior sanctions by national bodies.