Russian Football Union (RFU) v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), Polish Football Association, Swedish Football Association, Czech Football Association, Football Association of Monten

At a glance

Parties

Football Union of Russia (FUR) v. FIFA, UEFA, and the Polish, Swedish, Czech, Montenegrin and Maltese football associations

Case no.

CAS 2022/A/8708

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeals procedure under the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (2021 edition)

Treaty

None. Appeal under Article 57(1) of the FIFA Statutes; the FIFA Statutes (May 2021) and the World Cup Regulations apply, with Swiss law applying subsidiarily

Tribunal

Leanne O'Leary (President), Jeffrey G. Benz, Michael Beloff

Sector

Football; eligibility for competitions

Outcome

Appeal dismissed and the FIFA Bureau decision of 28 February 2022 confirmed. Several key findings were made by majority. The operative part was issued on 15 July 2022 and the reasoned award on 25 November 2022.

The dispute

The Football Union of Russia (FUR) appealed against a decision of the Bureau of the FIFA Council dated 28 February 2022. The decision suspended all FUR teams from FIFA competitions "until further notice", four days after the military conflict between Russia and Ukraine began. The Polish, Swedish and Czech associations had refused to play Russia in the World Cup 2022 qualifying play-offs. FUR argued that the decision was a disguised disciplinary sanction taken without a hearing. It also argued that the decision lacked a legal basis because there was no force majeure, and that it breached Articles 4, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 19 of the FIFA Statutes, proportionality, equal treatment, nulla poena sine lege, its personality rights under Article 28 of the Swiss Civil Code, and Swiss competition law. FIFA and UEFA answered that the decision was an administrative emergency measure, based on Articles 2(b) and 34(12) of the FIFA Statutes and Article 31 of the World Cup Regulations, taken to keep its competitions running smoothly and safely.

Key holdings

1. The suspension is an administrative decision, not a disciplinary decision or a disguised sanction. FUR breached no rule, and the measure was not intended to punish past conduct. The procedural guarantees of disciplinary proceedings therefore do not apply. Any procedural defects were in any case cured by the de novo review under Article R57 of the Code. ¶¶ 100–104
2. The Panel reviews the decision with deference to the association's autonomy. It intervenes only for arbitrariness, misuse of discretion, discrimination or breach of mandatory law that is blatant and manifest. Reasonableness and proportionality are still factors in that review. ¶¶ 108–111
3. By majority, the FIFA Bureau had competence under Article 31 of the World Cup Regulations and Article 38(1) of the FIFA Statutes. The situation was not provided for in the rules. It was also a force majeure event, consisting less of the conflict itself than of its extraordinary consequences: condemnation, sanctions, travel bans, the refusals to play and security concerns. No order from the IOC or the UN was needed. ¶¶ 123–126
4. FUR's right to participate under Article 13(e) of the FIFA Statutes is not absolute. By majority, it gave way to FIFA's interest in running the World Cup 2022 and its other competitions smoothly. There was no breach of Article 16, because FUR's membership was not suspended. There was no political discrimination under Article 4. Whether the refusing associations breached Article 14(1)(b) is a matter for disciplinary proceedings. ¶¶ 132–150
5. By majority, the suspension was proportionate to the situation as it stood on 28 February 2022. The Panel deferred to FIFA's expertise in rejecting the alternatives of postponement, neutral venues and matches behind closed doors. Events after that date were not considered. ¶¶ 153–158
6. There was no breach of equal treatment. Earlier conflicts and other federations' decisions are not comparable. Belarus was in a different position because its team had already been eliminated from the World Cup qualifiers. No infringement of personality rights was proven, and any infringement would likely be justified by an overriding interest. The competition law claim was dismissed because FUR gave no economic or expert evidence. ¶¶ 160–173

Procedural history

1. 27 February 2022The FIFA Bureau ordered that no FIFA match be played in Russia and that the Russian team play as "RFU", without flag or anthem.
2. 28 February 2022The FIFA Bureau suspended all FUR teams from FIFA competitions. It notified its grounds on 3 March 2022.
3. 7 March 2022FUR filed its Statement of Appeal with a request for provisional measures.
4. 18 March 2022The Division President rejected the first request for provisional measures. The reasoned order followed on 8 April 2022.
5. 24 May 2022The Panel was constituted, the same as in the parallel case CAS 2022/A/8709.
6. 14 June 2022The Panel rejected FUR's second request for provisional measures. The reasoned order followed on 13 September 2022.
7. 5 July 2022Hearing held by videoconference, together with CAS 2022/A/8709.
8. 15 July 2022Operative part of the award issued: appeal dismissed.
9. 25 November 2022Reasoned award issued.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Leanne O'Leary President, CAS Panel — appointed by the institution
• Jeffrey G. Benz Co-arbitrator, CAS Panel — appointed by the claimant
• Michael J. Beloff Co-arbitrator, CAS Panel — appointed by the respondent

For the claimant

Yury Zaytsev · Mikhail Prokopets · Alexandre Zen-Ruffinen · Ilya Chicherov · Yury Yakhno · Denis Rogachev

For the respondent

FIFA · Antonio Rigozzi · Brianna Quinn · Michaela Clicque · Grzegorz Knap

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022
• Russia–Ukraine conflict
• suspension from competitions
• force majeure
• administrative decision
• disguised sanction
• autonomy of sports associations
• proportionality
• political neutrality
• refusal to play
• personality rights Article 28 Swiss Civil Code
• Swiss Cartel Act
• abuse of dominant position
• equal treatment
• de novo review Article R57
• FIFA Bureau
• IOC resolution

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.