Swiss Federal Supreme Court Judgment of 22 January 2025
A. v. FIFA, Motion to set aside CAS Award CAS 2023/A/10002 of 14 October 2024
A Latvian professional football club (the Club) disputed a FIFA decision that determined the training compensation owed to a Ghanaian club (Club C) following the transfer of a player in March 2023. Under the applicable procedure, an Electronic Player Passport (EPP) was generated and reviewed. During this process, FIFA invited two times the Club to upload any waiver of training compensation. The club failed to do so within the deadlines and only submitted a renunciation document from Club C on 14 September 2023, i.e. after the final EPP and the training compensation had been issued. The CAS dismissed the club’s appeal, holding that the Club should have joined Club C a respondent, since said club had a direct interest in the procedure, and that the late-uploaded waiver could not be considered.
In the subsequent motion to the SFT, the Club invoked a violation of its right to be heard (Art. 190 para. 2 (d) PILA), arguing that the arbitrator ignored key arguments concerning regulatory inconsistencies, the absence of a time limit for filing waivers, and the allegedly disciplinary nature of the procedure. It also invoked a violation of public policy (Art. 190 para. 2 (e) PILA), claiming that the award disregarded fundamental principles such as contractual freedom, personal freedom, pacta sunt servanda, and the burden of proof.
The SFT swiftly rejected the claim of a violated right to be heard, noting that the motion merely reframed its disagreement with the arbitrator’s assessment of the evidence, as the CAS had implicitly – yet clearly – considered and dismissed arguments about regulatory contradictions and the alleged abuse of rights. The Court also held that criticisms about the arbitrator’s legal expertise were irrelevant under Art. 190 para. 2 (d) PILA. On the allegations of violation of public policy, the SFT emphasised that the misapplication of rules or erroneous factual findings cannot establish a breach. The club failed to demonstrate any result incompatible with Swiss ordre public, as the arbitrator’s conclusion – that Club C should have been a co-respondent and that the waiver was filed too late – was neither arbitrary nor shocking to fundamental legal values.
Once again, the SFT judgment confirmed well-established SFT jurisprudence on the strict limits on the right to be heard complaints in international arbitration, the extremely narrow scope of public policy, and the deference afforded to CAS in procedural matters, especially where parties fail to respect regulatory deadlines (see also the almost identical judgments involving other players SFT 4A_612/2024 & SFT 4A_614/2024 of 22 January 2025).
