Russian Football Union (RFU) v. Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), Football Association of Iceland, Israel Football Association, Football Association of Albania (FAA), Federação Portuguesa de Futebol (FPF), Koninklijke Nederlandse Voetbalbond

At a glance

Parties

Football Union of Russia (FUR) v. Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) and 29 UEFA member associations

Case no.

CAS 2022/A/8871

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeals procedure under the Code of Sports-related Arbitration; UEFA Statutes (2021 edition) and UEFA Bid Regulations, with Swiss law applying subsidiarily

Treaty

None. CAS jurisdiction rests on Article 62.1 of the UEFA Statutes

Panel

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

Sector

Football; eligibility for competitions and tournament hosting

Outcome

Appeal dismissed and the UEFA Executive Committee decisions of 2 May 2022 confirmed (25 November 2022). Several findings were made by majority.

Amount

No monetary claim. The costs paragraphs of the operative part are redacted in the published award.

The dispute

On 28 February 2022, after the military conflict between Russia and Ukraine began, the UEFA Executive Committee suspended all Russian representative teams and clubs from UEFA competitions until further notice (the Suspension Decision). On 2 May 2022 the Executive Committee put that suspension into effect for specific competitions (Circular No. 21/2022). Russia's teams were removed from the Nations League 2022/23, Women's EURO 2022, the Women's World Cup 2023 qualifiers, the U21 Championship, futsal, youth and Regions' Cup competitions, and other teams replaced them. The same decisions declared FUR's bid to host UEFA EURO 2028 or 2032 ineligible. FUR argued that the decisions were political sanctions, breached natural justice and good faith, abused a dominant position, and breached equal treatment and political neutrality. It also argued that they discriminated on nationality, infringed its personality rights under Article 28 of the Swiss Civil Code, were disproportionate and breached the Bid Regulations. UEFA answered that the participation decisions only implemented the Suspension Decision, which the same Panel had already upheld in CAS 2022/A/8709, and that the bid was properly declared ineligible under Articles 12.03 and 16.02 of the Bid Regulations. The other 29 respondents did not take part.

Key holdings

1. The appealed decisions are administrative decisions taken because of the Suspension Decision. They are not disciplinary sanctions or sanctions against the Russian Federation: FUR had breached no UEFA rule, and the decisions came from the Executive Committee, not from a UEFA judicial body. ¶¶ 91–94
2. UEFA had no duty to consult FUR before adopting the decisions. Any procedural failing would in any case be cured by the CAS de novo review under Article R57. Review is deferential: UEFA's autonomy gives way only to arbitrariness, discrimination or breaches of mandatory law that are blatant and manifest. ¶¶ 97–102
3. Under Articles 23.1 and 65 of the UEFA Statutes, the Executive Committee had power to take both the participation decisions and the ineligibility decision. Article 26.01 of the Bid Regulations, which entrusts the bidding procedure to the UEFA Administration, does not take that power away from the Committee. ¶¶ 108–115
4. The decisions did not breach political neutrality, equal treatment or the ban on nationality discrimination, and they did not abuse a dominant position. UEFA decided independently, to implement the Suspension Decision, in extraordinary and unforeseen circumstances. Belarus and Ukraine were in different positions. FUR offered no economic evidence of dominance and no evidence of infringed personality rights. The findings on neutrality and nationality were made by majority. ¶¶ 121–146
5. Proportionality can be reviewed even for administrative measures. The majority found the decisions a proportionate and necessary response. The alternatives FUR proposed (disciplinary action after the event, case-by-case decisions by officials, a protocol like the COVID-19 one) were reactive or would not remove the security risks, and the Panel deferred to UEFA on safety. ¶¶ 148–152
6. The EURO 2028/2032 bid was properly declared ineligible under Article 12.03 of the Bid Regulations. The host team qualifies automatically, the suspension had no set end, and no other bidder was suspended. FUR was not disqualified under Article 27, and Article 15.01 (fair, transparent and consistent treatment) was not breached. ¶¶ 159–164

Procedural history

1. 28 February 2022The UEFA Executive Committee suspends all Russian representative teams and clubs from UEFA competitions until further notice (Circular No. 10/2022).
2. 2 May 2022The UEFA Executive Committee adopts the appealed participation and bid-ineligibility decisions (Circular No. 21/2022).
3. 12 May 2022FUR files its Statement of Appeal with CAS. The request for an expedited procedure is rejected on 25 May 2022.
4. 1 July 2022Panel constituted.
5. 15 July 2022The same Panel dismisses the related appeals CAS 2022/A/8709 (FUR v. UEFA) and CAS 2022/A/8865-8868 (FC Zenit et al. v. UEFA).
6. 21 July 2022UEFA files its Answer. The other respondents do not take part.
7. 1 November 2022Order of Procedure issued. The case is decided on the written submissions without a hearing.
8. 25 November 2022Award: appeal dismissed and the decisions of 2 May 2022 confirmed.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

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

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• Russia
• UEFA
• Russia–Ukraine conflict
• suspension of Russian teams
• exclusion from competitions
• UEFA EURO 2028/2032 bid
• Bid Regulations
• administrative decision
• political neutrality
• discrimination on nationality
• proportionality
• equal treatment
• personality rights Article 28 Swiss Civil Code
• abuse of dominant position
• sports association autonomy
• de novo review Article R57
• IOC Resolution
• Nations League

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