The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a comprehensive ruling on a dispute involving the Association Sporting Club Bastiais (ASC Bastiais) and SC Bastia against FIFA and RCD Espanyol de Barcelona. The case centered on whether the appellants were liable for debts incurred by the original SC Bastia entity, which had entered liquidation. The panel, composed of arbitrators from Portugal, France, and Spain, addressed key legal issues, including the applicability of FIFA's disciplinary regulations, procedural fairness, and the definition of a football club's identity and continuity.
The dispute originated from a 2016 transfer agreement where SC Bastia agreed to pay Espanyol a fee for a player. The payment was not made, leading to a FIFA Players' Status Committee (PSC) decision in 2017 ordering SC Bastia to settle the debt. The club's commercial entity, SASP, was liquidated in 2017, but the amateur side, managed by ASC Bastiais, continued operations. A new entity, SCIC, was later formed to manage the team, which eventually returned to professional leagues. Espanyol pursued disciplinary action, arguing the new entities were successors to the original club's liabilities.
The CAS panel ruled that the 2019 FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC) applied, as liability for debts is continuous, and the 2019 version codified existing jurisprudence on sporting succession. The panel rejected arguments that the appellants' right to be heard was violated, noting they had ample opportunity to present their case. It also clarified that FIFA's Disciplinary Committee (DC) had jurisdiction to enforce the PSC decision, distinguishing between debt recognition (handled by the PSC) and enforcement (handled by the DC).
On the central issue of sporting continuity, the panel emphasized that a club transcends its legal structure, defined by its name, colors, history, and fanbase. It found that the appellants maintained SC Bastia's identity, leveraging its legacy while failing to demonstrate meaningful separation. The panel dismissed claims that holding them liable violated French public policy, stressing the need for uniform application of FIFA rules to protect third parties acting in good faith.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld the FIFA DC's decision, confirming the appellants' liability for the debt and reinforcing the principle that sporting continuity binds entities to a club's historical obligations. The ruling underscores the balance between regulatory consistency and equitable treatment in international football governance, ensuring clubs cannot evade responsibilities through structural changes while retaining their identity and benefits. The decision highlights the complexities of legal succession in sports and the importance of honoring financial commitments within FIFA's regulatory framework.