Swiss Federal Supreme Court Judgment 4A_313/2025 of 27 January 2026; challenge of CAS Award CAS 2024/A/10709 of 21 May 2025
This judgment forms part of a wider series of SFT judgments on jurisdictional challenges based on Art. 22 FIFA Rules on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). The dispute arose from an employment dispute between a national football association and a national team coach. The coach, dismissed prematurely, brought a claim before the FIFA Players’ Status Chamber seeking outstanding salary and compensation. FIFA upheld its jurisdiction and partially granted the claim, a position later confirmed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The federation challenged the CAS award before the SFT, arguing that the underlying employment contract referred disputes to “the competent court,” thereby excluding FIFA jurisdiction.
From a legal standpoint, the core issue concerned – once again – the interpretation of the dispute resolution clause in light of Article 22 RSTP. The CAS adopted a broad reading, considering that the wording “competent court” did not necessarily exclude arbitral or FIFA bodies and that FIFA jurisdiction operated alternatively. The SFT, however, confirmed its restrictive interpretation of arbitration agreements, emphasizing that any waiver of state court jurisdiction must be clear and unequivocal.
The SFT ultimately annulled the CAS award, finding that the clause “the dispute shall be referred to the competent court”must, under the principle of good faith, be understood as referring to state courts. It rejected CAS’s expansive interpretation and clarified that such wording does not encompass arbitral tribunals or FIFA bodies. Importantly, the SFT highlighted – probably for the first time so explicitly – that Article 22 RSTP establishes only a subsidiary jurisdiction of FIFA: once the parties designate state courts, FIFA jurisdiction is excluded, without the need for an explicit opt-out. The SFT also rejected arguments based on the employee’s weaker position and found no abuse of rights in invoking state jurisdiction. In those respects, the judgment adopts a similar approach to SFT 4A_92/2025.
In terms of practical consequences, the judgment seems to restrict the scope of Art. 22 RSTP, since jurisdiction depends on the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. In this respect, even relatively generic clauses referring to “courts” may suffice to exclude FIFA and CAS jurisdiction, provided they can reasonably be interpreted as designating state courts.
Even though consistent with the SFT’s long-standing jurisprudence, this judgment does suggest a more restrictive approach in jurisdictional matters related to Art. 22 RSTP, exposing a structural tension in the FIFA system: the assumption of “default” jurisdiction under Article 22 RSTP is fragile when confronted with broadly drafted contractual clauses. In light of this, FIFA may indeed wish to consider amending its rules, for example by requiring express and specific arbitration clauses referring to FIFA/CAS jurisdiction.
