Tullio Tinti v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

At a glance

Parties

Tullio Tinti (Italian football agent) v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

Case no.

CAS 2025/A/11173

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal arbitration under the Code of Sports-related Arbitration; FIFA regulations apply, with Swiss law subsidiarily

Treaty

None; FIFA Football Agent Regulations (FFAR), Articles 5, 17 and 21

Tribunal

Rui Botica Santos (President), Giulio Palermo, Jan Räker

Sector

Football; agent licensing

Outcome

Appeal upheld (22 October 2025). The FIFA General Secretariat's decision of 16 January 2025 suspending the agent's licence was set aside, and FIFA was ordered to reinstate licence No. 202309-3517.

Amount

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

The dispute

Tullio Tinti, an Italian football agent active since 1992, received a FIFA football agent licence on 2 September 2023 under the FFAR. In 2012 he had settled disciplinary proceedings with the prosecutor of the Italian Football Federation (FIGC) and accepted a 36-month licence suspension and a fine of EUR 80,000. He was later acquitted of the related criminal charges. On 16 January 2025 the FIFA General Secretariat held that the 2012 suspension made him ineligible under Article 5(1)(a)(iii) FFAR, which excludes agents suspended for two years or more for breaches of ethics rules. It "provisionally" suspended his licence under Article 17 FFAR. Because Article 21 FFAR was suspended, it could not refer the matter to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee. Tinti relied on non-retroactivity, ne bis in idem, Swiss personality rights (Articles 27 and 28 of the Swiss Civil Code, as cited in the award) and EU law (Articles 101, 102 and 56 TFEU). FIFA answered that the measure was an administrative eligibility determination, not a sanction, and that it was lawful and proportionate.

Key holdings

1. Articles 5, 17 and 21 FFAR set out four steps: investigation, a hearing for the agent, an automatic provisional suspension by the General Secretariat, and referral to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for a final decision. Forming a "belief" that an agent is ineligible is only a prima facie administrative assessment, not a finding or decision. ¶¶ 167–169
2. A provisional measure presupposes a limited duration and a clear prospect of review. FIFA conceded there was no clarity on when Article 21 FFAR would be reinstated, and no FIFA body could lift the suspension. The suspension was therefore indefinite and, in practice, a de facto definitive suspension. ¶¶ 174–177
3. The General Secretariat conflated its investigative function with the adjudicative authority reserved to the Disciplinary Committee. Its de facto definitive suspension of the licence has no legal basis and must be annulled. Powers to make definitive determinations cannot be assumed ex officio. ¶¶ 178–179, 196–197
4. Re-evaluating a validly issued licence on facts that predate its issue requires a more thorough investigation. FIFA and the FIGC had confirmed in 2023 that the agent met all eligibility requirements. The decision did not explain why no concerns were raised then, and it did not invoke error, omission or false statements. ¶¶ 183–189
5. The General Secretariat failed to consider three points. First, Article 5(1)(a)(iii) does not mention settlements, while Article 5(1)(a)(ii) expressly covers "any related settlements". Second, proportionality, given the time since the suspension was served (2012–2015) and the absence of any later sanction. Third, the agent's acquittal of the underlying criminal charges. ¶¶ 190–193
6. The Panel declined to use its de novo powers to decide eligibility itself. The agent had not asked it to, and the interpretation of the FFAR should first be clarified by the body that enacted them. ¶¶ 180–182, 194
7. The appeal is upheld, the decision is set aside, and FIFA must reinstate licence No. 202309-3517. All other prayers for relief are dismissed. The Panel did not rule on the agent's arguments on retroactivity, ne bis in idem, Swiss law or EU law. ¶¶ 197–199; operative part

Procedural history

1. 21 September 2012The FIGC National Disciplinary Committee imposes an agreed 36-month licence suspension and a fine of EUR 80,000 on Tinti.
2. 2 September 2023FIFA issues football agent licence No. 202309-3517 to Tinti under Article 23 FFAR.
3. 14 October 2024The FIFA Agent Department asks Tinti to show that he complies with Article 5(1)(a)(iii) FFAR. He replies on 31 October 2024.
4. 16 January 2025The FIFA General Secretariat provisionally suspends the licence and declares this a final decision under Article 50 of the FIFA Statutes.
5. 5 February 2025Tinti files his statement of appeal with CAS.
6. 9 May 2025The Panel is constituted.
7. 30 May 2025The Panel dismisses Tinti's request to stay the appealed decision.
8. 4 September 2025Hearing at the CAS Court Office in Lausanne.
9. 22 October 2025Award: the appeal is upheld, the decision is set aside and the licence is ordered reinstated.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Rui Botica Santos President, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the institution
• Giulio Palermo Co-arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the claimant
• Jan Räker Co-arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the respondent

For the claimant

Antonio Rigozzi · Patrick Pithon · Gian Pietro Bianchi · Sara Agostini · Lorenzo Vigasio · Roberto Invernizzi

For the respondent

FIFA

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• football agent
• FIFA Football Agent Regulations
• FFAR
• agent licence
• eligibility requirements
• provisional suspension
• competence
• FIFA General Secretariat
• FIFA Disciplinary Committee
• ultra vires
• de novo review
• settlement
• proportionality
• non-retroactivity
• ne bis in idem
• personality rights
• EU competition law
• CAS 2024/A/10918

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