Abstract
As far as the facts are concerned, it is clear that reference should be made to the full award. However, it is worth recalling here that the whole procedure conducted by the UEFA disciplinary bodies was concerned with whether or not FC Porto should be admitted to the UEFA Champions League for the 2008/09 season, bearing in mind the scandal and the criminal procedure known as “Apito Dourado”, in which FC Porto and its president were accused of involvement in referee corruption in 2004, i.e. several years previously. In the disputed decision, the UEFA Appeals Body had decided that it did not possess all the necessary evidence and referred the case back to the UEFA Control and Disciplinary Body (first instance). The clubs SL Benfica and Vitória SC challenged this decision before the CAS, requesting that FC Porto not be admitted to the UEFA Champions League 2008/09. Their interests clearly lay in the fact that Vitória SC had finished third in the Portuguese championship, while SL Benfica had finished fourth. If FC Porto were refused admission to the Champions League, Vitória SC would have qualified for the competition without having to play in the preliminary round, while SL Benfica would have gained a place in the Champions League preliminary round rather than in the UEFA Cup. The present article looks specifically at the question of the standing to appeal the UEFA decision. To conclude, a number of other issues dealt with in the arbitral award will be briefly mentioned.
Dr. Jean-Samuel Leuba—Attorney-at-Law.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
- 2.
The CAS has previously referred to Article 72 of the Swiss Civil Code (CAS 2002/A/423, p. 12).
- 3.
The provision mentioned is para 1.07 of the Regulations of the UEFA Champions League 2008/09, which states: “A club which is not admitted to the competition shall be replaced by the next best placed club in the top domestic league championship of the same national association, provided it fulfills the admission criteria. In this case, the access list for the UEFA Club Competitions (Annex 1a) will be adjusted accordingly”.
- 4.
It should be noted that a fixed match does not necessarily have to be fixed by both teams. In the present case, there was no evidence that the Pyunik club was involved. Generally, only the team that is meant to lose or concede a certain number of goals fixes the match, while the other team, which is not involved, plays its best in order to achieve the best possible result.
- 5.
The media have recently reported on the control and monitoring measures that have been implemented, in particular by UEFA, and then by FIFA, in this area.
- 6.
Incidentally, one of the witnesses who was meant to remain anonymous declared at the hearing that he was prepared to reveal his identity and be examined in the presence of the parties and the arbitrators. He was therefore taken to the hearing chamber and examined as an ordinary witness. This witness was a former coach of the Pobeda club, who was coaching another Macedonian team when the hearing took place. A few days after the hearing, he was sacked by his Macedonian club, particularly on the grounds that he had tarnished the image of Macedonian football. In principle, the club who sacked this coach has no links with the Pobeda club.
- 7.
The CAS applied the version of Article R56 that was in force before 1 January 2010. The amendment of this provision does not concern an element that was crucial to the question being dealt with here.
- 8.
Unofficial translation of the following : "La compétence du TAS à juger de novo doit être fondée sur les règlements de la fédération intéressée, limite à laquelle souscrit ce Tribunal. En tant qu'instance arbitrale privée, la compétence du TAS se trouve limitée par la compétence de la procédure arbitrale sur laquelle est fondé l'appel".
References
Baddeley M (1994) L’Association sportive face au droit. Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel
Perrin JP (2004) Droit de l’association. Schulthess, Zurich
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 © T.M.C.ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors/editors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Leuba, JS. (2011). Match Fixing. In: Wild, A. (eds) CAS and Football: Landmark Cases. ASSER International Sports Law Series. T.M.C. Asser Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-808-8_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-808-8_11
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press
Print ISBN: 978-90-6704-807-1
Online ISBN: 978-90-6704-808-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)
