Switzerland: The Independence Of CAS Confirmed

Last Updated: 6 April 2018
Article by Hansjörg Stutzer, Michael Bösch and Simon M. Hohler

On 8 March 2018 the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (the "Court") published on its website a new decision in the field of international arbitration (the "Decision")1 wherein it confirmed the Court of Arbitration for Sport's (the "CAS") independence from the Fédération Internationale de Football Association ("FIFA").

The Decision, which was rendered by all five members of the First Civil Chamber on 20 February 2018, will be included in the Court's publication of leading cases.

1 Facts

The dispute that led to the Decision circled around the topic of Third Party Ownership (TPO).

In 2015, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee sanctioned a Belgian football club (the "Club") for violations of articles 18bis2 and 18ter3 of FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players ("RSTP"). The FIFA Appeal Committee confirmed this decision in 2016, whereupon the Club filed an appeal with CAS.

On 9 March 2017, CAS rendered its final award, substantially upholding the Appeal Committee's decision.

On 15 March 2017, the Club filed an action with the Court requesting that the CAS decision be annulled. The Club relied on several grounds for the annulment of the CAS award, amongst others that it had been rendered by an improperly constituted arbitral tribunal in the context of article 190(2)(a) Swiss Private International Law Act ("PILA").

According to the Club, CAS could not be considered as a genuine arbitral tribunal ("un véritable tribunal arbitral") because of various reasons such as that FIFA is the dominant sport association in relation to CAS' business volume and also finances CAS with significant contributions. As FIFA, according to the Club, is a major client of CAS, the mere prospect of losing this important business would influence CAS awards to the detriment of parties in dispute with FIFA. This risk would be even higher given that CAS' employees and arbitrators would suffer, unlike state judges that are protected by their official status, a direct and negative impact on their private wealth in the event that FIFA were to renounce its CAS membership. Furthermore, the CAS Code requires the arbitrators to transmit the award to CAS' Secretary General for review and this could then influence the outcome of the case during the scrutiny process.

FIFA and CAS, the latter acting through its Secretary General, rejected the Club's arguments. In respect of CAS' financial independence from FIFA, CAS disclosed that it received a yearly contribution of CHF 1.5 million from FIFA. However, according to CAS' Secretary General, this must be considered as a modest contribution in the light of (i) CAS' total annual budget of CHF 16 million and (ii) the fact that the entire Olympic movement ("l'ensemble du mouvement olympique") contributes CHF 7.5 million annually. Furthermore, CAS' Secretary General pointed out that the International Council of Arbitration for Sport ("ICAS") as well as CAS itself has undergone, since 2011, numerous significant structural and regulatory changes, in particular by removing the quotas of arbitrators nominated based on proposals of the various sport entities. Today, any person meeting the criteria provided for in article S14 of the CAS Code may apply to become a CAS member. In addition, the composition of ICAS has also changed considerably over time, in particular by adding personalities from the legal world. Today, according to CAS' Secretary General, the ICAS includes eight independent lawyers specialising in international arbitration, six judges, four professional sports managers and two law professors. Therefore, after 32 years of existence and more than 5,000 proceedings, the ICAS/CAS enjoys, according to CAS' Secretary General, a very broad trust and hence has no interest in "protecting itself" by placing itself under external influence.

In a detailed decision, the Court rejected the Club's arguments and confirmed that CAS is sufficiently independent from FIFA. As there were also no other reasons to annul the award, i.e. no violation either of the right to be heard or of public policy, the Court dismissed the Club's annulment action. These other grounds for the annulment action will not be addressed in this newsletter; instead we will focus only on the question of CAS' independence.

2 Considerations

The Court started by pointing to its landmark judgment "Lazutina" of 20034, where it had held, in essence, that (i) CAS is sufficiently independent from the International Olympic Committee as well as any other party using its services, and (ii) CAS' awards are to be considered as genuine decisions, comparable to decisions rendered by state courts. Since 2003, this judgment has been confirmed repeatedly by the Court5, most recently in its decision in the Michel Platini case.6

The Court next noted that the German Bundesgerichtshof, in its "Pechstein" judgment in 2016 and after a detailed review of the issue, had come to the conclusion that CAS was a genuine arbitral institution and was an independent and neutral body. After addressing other foreign judgments, which had been referred to by the parties, the Court held that it had no reason to reconsider its well-established case law. The Court would reconsider its previous findings only if there were compelling reasons why FIFA should be treated differently to other international federations in respect of CAS' independence. However, the Court found no such compelling arguments in the Club's submission sufficient to justify categorising FIFA differently to other sports organizations.

In relation to CAS' financial independence from FIFA, the Court held that FIFA's annual contribution of CHF 1.5 million to CAS represented less than 10% of the latter's budget of CHF 16 million. FIFA's contribution remains significantly below the CHF 7.5 million paid by the Olympic organisation. Moreover, the Court found it difficult to imagine to whom, other than sports organisations, CAS could turn to collect the necessary funds to pay its overheads. In particular, the Court held that it did not consider it a viable option to demand from the athletes and sports institutions equal contributions to CAS' funding since this would harm the former and result in their being denied access to CAS.

The Court then also pointed out that the Club did not proffer any evidence or statistical data, which would show that CAS would grant FIFA a preferential status in cases in which FIFA is a party.

Finally, the Court addressed article R59(2) of the CAS Code, which requires the arbitrators, in a process similar to the scrutiny of awards under the ICC Rules, to transmit the award to the CAS Secretary General who, before the award is signed, may make rectifications of pure form and may also draw the attention of the Panel to fundamental issues of principle. According to the Court, this scrutiny process would not raise any doubts as to CAS' independence.

Therefore, the Court saw no reason not to consider CAS to be independent from FIFA and rejected the Club's annulment action.

3 Conclusions

This case is based on complex patterns of facts and arguments which, therefore, also led to a lengthy Decision, which certainly requires further analysis, going beyond the scope of this newsletter.

1. Whereas the previous leading cases on CAS' independence (Gundel, Lazutina, Pechstein) were primarily focused on the closed list of arbitrators and the (then) predominant position of the international federations and the role of international institutions in promoting arbitrators to such a closed list, the present case focuses primarily on the alleged financial dependence of CAS on FIFA (and the IOC). It is certainly interesting to have now more information in this respect: the CHF 1.5 million contributed by FIFA is about 9% of CAS' total budget of CHF 16 million. The contribution of the IOC, namely CHF 7.5 million, is already significantly more substantial, namely approx. 47%; FIFA and IOC together contribute 56% to the total budget. This in itself does not establish at all that CAS is the "long-arm" of FIFA and IOC. But we all know that independence is not a matter of proof but a matter of perception. How do the Russian athletes not admitted to the 2018 Olympic Winter Games by the IOC perceive the independence of CAS if they learn that the IOC is substantially funding the services of CAS? And, where do the remaining CHF 7 million of the total cost of CAS come from? Are they covered out of the costs paid by the parties or are there further funders?

2. The Court is obviously right in emphasizing that the standard financing of an arbitration, namely each party paying half of the advances on costs, could preclude athletes from having "their day in court". It follows that the present regime is more beneficial for the athletes. Nevertheless, it would at least be worthwhile giving some thought to whether this "sponsoring" of CAS by FIFA and IOC can be avoided. If e.g. every professional athlete registered in any federation paid a mere 10 cents per year all financial sorrows and potential related independence issues of CAS would probably disappear.

This should be a task for ICAS. In the CAS Secretary General's submission he emphasized the changes ICAS and CAS had undergone in recent years. In doing so he maintained that, amongst other matters, out of the 20 members ICAS, the supervising board of CAS, eight members are independent lawyers specialized in the field of international arbitration ("8 avocats indépendants spécialistes de l'arbitrage internationals"). If we look at the CVs of the ICAS members visible on CAS' website (www.tas-cas.org/en/icas/members.html) we are, however, unable to identify all of those eight arbitration specialists.7 But if ICAS is tasked to control and develop the arbitral services rendered by CAS8 it would certainly seem appropriate to have more experience and competence in international arbitration represented in ICAS.

3. The Decision tells us also that, whilst 65% of all CAS cases are football related, only 5% actually involve FIFA directly as a party. However, what is generally not known is the following: if a party starts proceedings against FIFA at CAS it will receive shortly thereafter a standard-form letter from the secretariat of CAS (!) stating that:

"[I] must inform you that, as a general rule, FIFA does not pay any arbitration costs in advance when it acts as a respondent in a procedure before CAS, which is admissible to CAS pursuant to art. R64, 2 of the code of sports related arbitration. This means that, according to the same provision of the code, the Appellant has to pay the entirety of the advance of costs."

Of course, FIFA has, as any other respondent, the right to refuse to fund the proceedings initiated against it but the fact that FIFA is not even requested by CAS to contribute to the funding so that the appellant is directly confronted with the obligation to fund the entire proceedings gives rise to second thoughts. In particular, the Court's argument that CAS' funding cannot, just as in commercial arbitration, be done by advancing the administrative costs and the fees of the arbitrators in equal shares by the parties, is at odds with FIFA's behaviour because "as a general rule" it does not, as respondent, pay any of its share of the advance on costs, thereby putting at least those players and officials with low salaries or insufficient means into a difficult financial situation. This is regrettable: on the one hand FIFA pays CHF 1.5 million as an annual contribution but, when it comes to the funding of an actual case, it refuses to do so!

4. Nothing in the above commentary should, however, be construed as putting the function and the values of CAS fundamentally into question but there is always room for improvement - or, to remain in the language of sport: "the race for quality has no finish line!"


1. BGE 4A_260/2017 of 20 February 2018, in French.

2. Article 18bis RSTP deals with the inadmissible third-party influence on clubs.

3. Article 18ter RSTP deals with the inadmissible third-party ownership of player's economic rights.

4. BGE 129 III 445.

5. See BGE 4P.149/2003, 4P.172/2006, 4A_548/2009, 4A_612/2009, 4A_640/2010, 4A_246/2011, 4A_428/2011 and 4A_102/2016.

6. BGE 4A_600/2016.

7. With the exception of Carole Malinvaud, President of CAS' Ordinary Division, heavily involved in commercial arbitration and well recognized in the international arbitration scene.

8. According to article S2 of the CAS Code, "[t]he purpose of ICAS is to facilitate the resolution of sports-related disputes through arbitration or mediation and to safeguard the independence of CAS and the rights of the parties. It is also responsible for the administration and financing of CAS."

To read this Newsletter in full, please click here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions