The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on April 25, 2023, in a dispute involving Association Sporting Club Bastiais and SC Bastia (the Appellants) against FIFA and FSV Mainz 05 (the Respondents). The case revolved around unpaid financial obligations stemming from a 2016 loan agreement between SC Bastia and Mainz, which resulted in a 2017 FIFA Players’ Status Committee (PSC) decision ordering payment of €210,000 plus interest. Following the liquidation of the original managing entity, SASP, in 2017, the Association and a newly formed entity, SCIC, continued operating under the SC Bastia name. Mainz pursued disciplinary action in 2021, arguing the new entities were liable for the debt. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee (DC) ruled in favor of Mainz, prompting the Appellants to appeal to CAS.
The CAS panel addressed several key legal issues, including the applicability of FIFA’s disciplinary regulations, the distinction between sporting succession and continuity, and the definition of a "club." The panel determined that the 2019 FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC) applied, as it codified existing jurisprudence on sporting succession and continuity. It clarified that a "club" transcends its legal operators, encompassing elements like name, history, and fanbase. The panel rejected the Appellants' argument that they were distinct from the original SC Bastia, finding they had maintained sporting continuity by retaining the club’s identity, including its name, colors, stadium, and historical narrative. The panel emphasized the protection of third-party interests, noting that allowing the Appellants to evade liabilities would undermine fairness in football governance.
The CAS also dismissed procedural objections, affirming the FIFA DC’s competence to enforce the PSC decision and ruling that the Appellants had ample opportunity to present their case. The panel upheld the FIFA DC’s decision in full, confirming the Appellants’ liability for the debt and associated penalties. The ruling underscores the principle that clubs cannot shed financial obligations by restructuring, ensuring consistency in the application of sports law. The case highlights the complexities of club identity and financial accountability in football, reinforcing the importance of uniform disciplinary standards across international football governance. The CAS decision serves as a precedent for similar disputes involving club continuity and successor liability.