The case revolves around professional footballer Ashley Cole's appeal against a decision by the Football Association Premier League (FAPL) Disciplinary Commission, which found him in breach of FAPL Rule K5. This rule prohibits players under contract from negotiating transfers with other clubs without written consent from their current club. Cole was initially fined £100,000, later reduced to £75,000 by the FAPL Appeals Committee. He then appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), challenging both the CAS's jurisdiction and the substantive decision. The CAS panel, composed of Hans Nater, Stuart McInnes, and Jan Paulsson, examined its jurisdiction under Article R47 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration, which requires that the statutes or regulations of the sports body must explicitly recognize the CAS as an appellate body. The panel found that neither the FAPL's rules nor FIFA's statutes mandated an appeal to the CAS, and FAPL Rule R63 explicitly stated that the Appeals Committee's decision was final. The panel also considered Swiss Private International Law, particularly Article 186, which allows arbitral tribunals to rule on their own jurisdiction (the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz). Although both parties initially accepted the CAS's jurisdiction to resolve the jurisdictional issue, the panel concluded that the FAPL's regulations did not provide for a right of appeal to the CAS. Consequently, the CAS lacked jurisdiction to hear the substantive appeal, as the FAPL's rules did not expressly recognize the CAS as an appellate body. The decision highlights that the CAS's jurisdiction depends on explicit provisions in the relevant sports body's statutes or regulations, and without such provisions, the CAS cannot hear an appeal. The panel dismissed Cole's appeal on jurisdictional grounds, upholding the FAPL Appeals Committee's decision as final. The ruling underscores the principle that CAS jurisdiction is contingent on clear provisions in the governing body's rules, and in this case, the absence of such provisions rendered the appeal inadmissible. The case was ultimately removed from the CAS roll, affirming the finality of the FAPL's decision.