Editor's note: Marine Montejo is a graduate from the College of Europe in Bruges and is currently an intern at the ASSER International Sports Law Centre.

On 3 June 2015, Sepp Blatter resigned as President of FIFA after another corruption scandal inside the world’s football governing body was brought to light by the American authorities supported by the Swiss prosecutor office. Two months after Michel Platini announced he would be a candidate for the next FIFA Presidential election, on 25 September 2015, the Swiss prosecutor opened an investigation against S. Blatter on an alleged disloyal payment he authorised to M. Platini. On 8 October 2015, the FIFA Ethics Committee announced both of them were provisionally suspended upon their hearings, a suspension that was later confirmed by CAS. In the end, M. Platini was sanctioned with an eight years ban from all football activities, later reduced to a six years ban by FIFA Appeal Commission on 24 February 2016. In the meantime, he withdrew his candidacy to become the next FIFA President. On 9 May 2016, after M. Platini appealed this sanction, the CAS confirmed the suspension but reduced it to four years, leading to his resignation from the UEFA presidency and the announcement of his intention to challenge the CAS award in front of the Swiss Federal Tribunal.

On 19 September, the CAS finally published the full text of the award in the dispute between M. Platini and FIFA. The award is in French as M. Platini requested that the procedure be conducted in that language. You will find below a summary of the ‘highlights’ of the 63-page decision. 

Facts of the case

The detailed analysis of the facts of the case by CAS is well worth reading as it contains a precise description of the developments giving rise to the dispute. It also describes the alleged work done by M. Platini for FIFA and the related payments received from the organisation that are also investigated by Swiss authorities.

The first meeting between M. Platini (the France 1998 World Cup organising committee co-President at that time) and S. Blatter (the contemporaneous FIFA Secretary General) was held in January 1998 where the latter asked M. Platini to be the next candidate for FIFA’s Presidential election. M. Platini refused the offer. They both met a few months later (no precise date was given in the award – simply “spring 1998”) and agreed that M. Platini would support S. Blatter’s candidature for the FIFA Presidency, forming a “ticket”. In the case of a successful outcome, M. Platini would become either one of FIFA’s directors or sports advisers. During this meeting, they allegedly also discussed the remuneration for M. Platini’s future work for FIFA. The former UEFA President said that he proposed 1 million per year, leaving the choice of currency to S. Blatter. During the CAS procedure, M. Platini and S. Blatter stated they had agreed (“oral agreement”) on remuneration of CHF 1 million for M. Platini’s sports or technical advisory services, which is roughly €900,000. Jacques Lambert (the former France 1998 World Cup organising committee chief executive) said before the CAS Panel that M. Platini had told him about that oral agreement, but also acknowledged that no other person was physically present during the meeting to confirm it. 

In the award, it is noted that M. Platini participated in the campaign in an informal manner and that M. Blatter, shortly after his election, publicly announced that he would be his “Foreign Affairs Minister”. As such, the exact position of M. Platini remained uncertain at that time. With regard to these findings, the award relied on former UEFA Secretary General Gerhard Aigner’s testimony during FIFA’s internal procedure. An internal note written by Mr. Aigner, dated 19 September 1998, questioned M. Platini’s future role at FIFA and the rumours circulating about his desire to be based in Paris; it also speculated that this seemed inappropriate for the position of FIFA sports director. He likewise questioned the CHF 1 million salary. This note was given to the members of the UEFA Executive Committee Board (meeting on 12 November 1998) but no official document was received by UEFA confirming M. Platini’s salary. More importantly, the note was added to a set of documents collected for a meeting between the UEFA President (and Secretary General) and individuals from FIFA’s Executive Committee. This meeting aimed to prepare for FIFA’s Executive Committee meeting (3 and 4 December 1998), but there is no certainty that the document was actually discussed during the meeting of 3 December. Amongst these documents, another, dated 29 November 1998 and addressed only to the European members of FIFA Executive Committee, reported once again the rumours surrounding M. Platini’s future job, this time referring to his role as “the head of a development programme” or as a “personal political advisor”. In a nutshell, by the end of 1998 there was no official announcement by FIFA on M. Platini’s position and remuneration except rumours.

M. Platini’s official functions for FIFA started on 1 January 1999 but, in reality, he had commenced work for FIFA in the second part of 1998. In August 1999, M. Platini asked S. Blatter to formalise their contract (“written contract”). This was signed by M. Platini and S. Blatter (as a representative of FIFA) on 25 August 1999. This contract is the first official document where M. Platini’s role is defined as the FIFA Presidential advisor on international football issues (“la [FIFA] conseiller et l’assister, en particulier son Président, pour toutes les questions relatives au football au niveau international”). A salary of CHF 300,000 is written by hand in the document and, in the annex, daily allowances in and outside Europe are also mentioned. S. Blatter and M. Platini said that they were aware of FIFA’s financial difficulties at that time and had agreed, without formally stating the amounts and conditions for payment, that the remaining money would be paid later. M. Platini worked from his office in Paris with two other persons, and all of their expenses paid by FIFA. With S. Blatter’s authorisation, M. Platini also saw the rights from his so-called benefit plan extended. The plan was set up in 2005 for members of FIFA’s Executive Committee and remained operational for more than eight years after they left. M. Platini’s rights were exceptionally extended to the years he was the FIFA Presidential advisor; thus, it also covered 1998 to 2002 when he resigned and became a full member of FIFA’s Executive Committee.

In 2010, M. Platini sought the payment of the full amount he was due in conformity with the oral agreement. He explained that FIFA was financially stable and, notably, that its executives’ salaries had been raised substantially. An invoice was sent to FIFA that requested payment of the balance for the four years, amounting to CHF 2,000,000. The CAS Panel raised an important query at that point surrounding the amount claimed – namely, for a salary of CHF 1,000,000 per year over a period of 4 years, the Panel suggested that the amount claimed ought to have been CHF 2,800,000. M. Platini waved away the divergence by saying that he thought he received CHF 500,000 p.a. from FIFA and not only CHF 300,000. However, he had previously stated that he mentioned to S. Blatter at the time the written contract was signed that the salary was less than the one they had previously agreed to, so he should have known how much he was paid. S. Blatter explained that he did not check the accuracy of the invoice and authorised the payment. The payment was included in FIFA’s 2010 account which was approved during FIFA’s Finance Commission meeting of 2 March 2011, to which M. Platini attended as the UEFA representative. During the Swiss investigation, M. Angel Villar Llona, UEFA’s Vice-President, stated that M. Julio Grondona, President of the FIFA Finance Commission at the time, told him about the payment owed to M. Platini because the full amount could not be written down for political reasons. The payment was made on 19 November 2012.

The CAS award then discussed the presidential atmosphere around FIFA and the opening of the Swiss investigation as well as the procedure before FIFA against M. Platini. As a reminder, let’s recall that the former UEFA President was first sentenced to an eight year ban by the Adjudicatory Chamber of the FIFA Ethics Committee for several breaches of the FIFA Code of Ethics (“CEF”). This sanction was later reduced to a six year suspension by the FIFA Appeal Committee.

Substance of the case

The CAS Panel first rejected the alleged procedural wrongs raised by M. Platini’s defence after the disciplinary proceedings before FIFA. The arbitrators recalled that the Panel shall have the full power to review the facts and the law.[1] As such the appeal cures any procedural breaches that might have occurred earlier. The arbitrators also spent some time on the legal debate around the notion of proof. This discussion concerned whether FIFA needed to prove that M. Platini violated the CEF as the payment he received was without any basis and that M. Platini bears the burden to prove that such grounds existed.

- Concerning the violation of article 20 CEF (“Offering and accepting gifts and other benefits”), the FIFA Appeal Committee decision concluded that M. Platini received a CHF 2,000,000 payment in 2011 that could not be based on a contractual agreement. Consequently, this payment was said to be undue and constituted an infringement of article 20 CEF. The CAS Panel likewise came to the conclusion that there wasn’t sufficient proof to establish the existence of an oral agreement. As a consequence, the amount was paid pursuant to a non-existent legal obligation, which constituted a breach of article 20 CEF. The CAS Panel even went a step further and found that the extension of the benefit plan was also a breach of that same provision.

First, with regard to the oral agreement, the CAS award highlights that there is no direct or contemporaneous proof that such an agreement was made.[2] The only and closest element of proof the CAS Panel could find is the written contract of August 1999, which establishes the CHF 300,000 salary for M. Platini as FIFA advisor. The arbitrators also stated that this contract constitutes unambiguous proof that there was not, unless otherwise proven, another contract that stipulated a CHF 1,000,000 salary.[3] As such, the CAS Panel ruled out M. Lambert’s testimony as it is indirect and cannot constitute proof that such an agreement was legally concluded. Moreover, the Panel noted that he had first mentioned this agreement in 2015. It also did the same with the two notes coming from UEFA and M. Villar Llona’s testimony, finding that they were only proof that negotiations were ongoing at the time for M. Platini to become an advisor at FIFA; they could not constitute an actual official confirmation of the alleged remuneration. Furthermore, the CAS Panel[4] put forward that M. Blatter, during his audition before CAS, said that the oral contract was a “gentlemen’s agreement” and, as such, not legally binding. Additionally, he stated that he was not sure he had the sole competence at the time, as FIFA’s Secretary General, to negotiate such an agreement. The CAS Panel then drew the conclusion that at no point was a clear commitment given by M. Blatter regarding the alleged remuneration. The Panel also considered that the fact that FIFA paid M. Platini is not a proof that the oral agreement existed. It highlights Blatter’s “centralised and old fashioned” [5] management and concluded that the other executives at FIFA did not have any option other than to execute the orders, namely the payment of M. Platini’s bill.

Subsequently, the CAS moved to apply Swiss national law (article 55 of the Swiss Civil Code). M. Platini said that M. Blatter acted on behalf of FIFA. The Panel firmly disagreed with him: firstly, by saying that M. Platini had not acted in good faith as he knew the written contract did not disclose the full amount he supposedly was due after the oral agreement; and, secondly, the Panel discussed the possible abuse of power by M. Blatter as he supposedly gave authorisation for remuneration that was even higher than his own and the Secretary General’s, concluding that he probably diverged from the normal course of business[6] and, as such, could not have represented FIFA’s will. As a consequence, the only valid agreement was the written contract of August 1999. Furthermore, the arbitrators could not find any proof of the alleged deferment of the final amount payable in that oral agreement and held that the only remuneration M. Platini was due was the one in the written contract. The CAS Panel was even more severe with M. Platini, of whom it found was not an “athlete without experience” but an “experienced manager in football” who should have known the importance of such a contract; this tended to demonstrate that there wasn’t any oral agreement.[7] The CAS Panel insisted that M. Platini’s claim that he waited until 2010 to ask for the full payment because of FIFA’s bad financial situation was contradicted by the facts. Moreover, M. Platini’s claims that FIFA’s executives received bonuses without justification meant that he did not act in the interest of FIFA but only in his own.[8] Finally, concerning the fact that M. Platini allegedly miscalculated the rest of his salary (CHF 500,000 per year instead of CHF 700,000) the Panel was, to say the least, not convinced by his explanation and concluded that both incoherencies on the amount and on the date of the invoice contradict M. Platini’s position.

Finally, regarding the extension of the benefit plan, the CAS Panel was straightforward by finding that M. Platini was not entitled to it during his years as FIFA’s Presidential advisor because this plan is only for members of the Executive Committee. This extension only occurred due to S. Blatter’s decision.[9] Even though no payment has been made yet as a result of this plan, the extension was also held to be a breach of article 20 CEF. 

- With regard to the violation of article 19 CEF (“Conflicts of interest”), the FIFA Appeal Committee decision concluded that M. Platini was in a situation of conflict of interest when he signed M. Blatter’s statement of support in May 2011 after he received the contested payment. He also participated in a meeting of FIFA’s Finance Commission without notifying the organisers that he was personally affected by the payment inserted into the agenda of the meeting.

On the topic of M. Blatter’s statement of support, the CAS Panel outlined that the declaration was signed by M. Platini as UEFA President and not as a FIFA official. As a consequence, article 19 CEF cannot apply in that case. However, the CAS Panel was, once again, severe with M. Platini by stating that, even though article 19 CEF cannot apply in these circumstances, there was nonetheless a conflict of interest in this case, albeit to UEFA’s disadvantage in this instance.[10]

To support his participation at FIFA’s Finance Commission in March 2011, M. Platini argued he had to replace the UEFA executive that fell sick (M. Marios Lefkaritis, UEFA treasurer). The CAS Panel concluded that M. Platini was in a situation of conflict of interest when he took part in the meeting that approved the 2010 annual report containing the CHF 2,000,000 payment he was not entitled to received. Even though the payment did not appear individually on the document, M. Platini should have disclosed during the meeting that he was personally affected. Hence, the CAS Panel stated that M. Platini could not act with integrity, independence and determination as a member of FIFA’s Finance Commission, because he had a personal interest in obfuscating that payment and making sure that FIFA’s 2010 account were adopted .[11] 

- With regard to the violation of articles 13 CEF (“General rules of conduct”) and 15 CEF (“Loyalty”), the CAS Panel did not follow the FIFA Appeal Committee decision. The arbitrators used the lex specialis derogat generali principle through which, if a behaviour falls under a general and a specific rule, only the latter rule will apply. Both provisions were applied because the acts in breach of articles 19 and 20 (specific provisions) and were not separate facts falling under articles 13 and 15 (general provisions). As a consequence, the CAS Panel concluded that there were no breaches of articles 13 and 15, but it did not spare M. Platini – it specifically stated that the Panel didn’t condone M. Platini’s behaviour nor were the former UEFA President’s actions ethical or loyal (§328 and §335). 

- Concerning the sanction. The Panel reduced the sanction to a three year suspension for the breach of article 20 CEF because of a number of mitigating circumstances. These include the added value M. Platini has given over the years to football, his cooperation in the procedure before the Panel and the fact that he is at the end of his career. The CAS Panel also took into account the fact that FIFA already knew about the undue payment in 2011 but did not start an investigation until 2015.[12]

By contrast, the CAS Panel found that the high level positions M. Platini occupied in football constituted an aggravating factor for the sanction. Likewise, the fact that he did not express any regret was also counted against him.[13] He was also sanctioned by a one year suspension for the breach of article 19 CEF which brings the total suspended period to four years (as from 8 October 2015) and a CHF 60,000 fine.

Conclusion

The arbitral award is very detailed and the justifications given by M. Platini, S. Blatter and their lawyers were examined at great length by the arbitrators. The description of the facts and the discussion of the grounds of the decision are precise and meticulous. It is striking how M. Platini’s defence appears to be the one of someone who was not very well informed about his own financial affairs. He extensively said that he was not a man of means and his arguments portrayed him as careless, negligent or even indifferent, which does not sit well with a former UEFA President. The arbitrators are not buying any of it and are severe, to say the least, in their appreciation. In particular, regarding the breach of article 20 CEF for which they highlighted that it was the most serious offense of M. Platini. However, the arbitrators, at the sanctioning stage, found mitigating factors to reduce the sanction that are surprising. Finally, after a third examination of its case, M. Platini’s sanction seems to keep on reducing whereas the offenses identified remained more or less the same.

[1] §223. « … la Formation rappelle qu’en vertu de l’article R57 du Code, le TAS jouit d’un plein pouvoir d’examen en fait et en droit… » §224. « Ainsi, la procédure devant le TAS guérit toutes les violations procédurales qui auraient pu être commises par les instances précédentes. »

[2] §234. « …qu’il n’existe aucune preuve directe et contemporaine de la conclusion dudit accord. »

[3] §235. « … Devant cet élément indiscutable, la Formation examinera ci-dessous si des éléments de preuve supplémentaires pourraient venir appuyer les explications de M. Platini et pourraient renverser la preuve résultant du texte univoque de la Convention écrite. »

[4] §253. « … au vu du style de management centralisateur et à l’ancienne de M. Blatter, les autres intervenants au sein de la FIFA n’avaient que peu de marge de manœuvre face à une instruction de ce dernier… ».

[5] §238 and 239

[6] §257. « … un contrat du type de celui de l’Accord oral dépasserait le cadre des affaires que peut conclure un représentant diligent d’une personne morale ».

[7] §274. « … puisqu’au moment des faits… [M. Platini] n’était pas un jeune athlète sans expérience, mais un ancien footballeur de très haut niveau, ancien sélectionneur de l’Equipe de France et ancien co-Président du comité d’organisation de la Coupe du Monde FIFA en France, c’est-à-dire un dirigeant expérimenté dans le domaine du football, qui devait savoir qu’un contrat de l’importance de celui qu’il prétend avoir conclu devait être couché sur papier… Ceci démontre encore l’invraisemblance de l’Accord oral. »

[8] §276. « … En faisant cette déclaration, M. Platini semble sous-entendre que constatant que d’autres dirigeants avaient obtenu des paiements sans justification particulière, il avait lui aussi tenté de le faire. Ce faisant, il ne démontre pas avoir agi dans l’intérêt de la FIFA, dont il était membre du Comité exécutif, mais uniquement dans son intérêt personnel. »

[9] §293. « … Les courriers de M. Valcke et M. Kattner de 2009 font clairement apparaître que l’inclusion des années 1998 à mi-2002 était inhabituelle et résultait de la seule décision de M. Blatter. »

[10]§304. « … le conflit d’intérêt (qui existait bien, de l’avis de la Formation) … ».

[11] §311. « Il est ainsi évident que M. Platini ne pouvait agir avec intégrité, indépendance et détermination en tant que membre de la Commission des finances, puisqu’il avait un intérêt personnel à cacher l’existence du paiement de CHF 2'000 000 dont il avait bénéficié, afin que les comptes 2010 soient adoptés sans que ce paiement soit évoqué. »

[12] §358. « … Enfin, la Formation prend également en compte le fait que la FIFA n’a débuté l’investigation contre M. Platini qu’en 2015, et de surcroît uniquement après que l’enquête du MPC a débuté, alors qu’elle avait connaissance du paiement concerné en 2011 (même si elle ignorait à ce moment-là le véritable motif du paiement). »

[13] §359. « En revanche, la Formation considère comme facteurs aggravants le fait que M. Platini a exercé des fonctions très élevées tant à la FIFA qu’à l’UEFA et qu’il avait donc un devoir accru de respecter les règles internes de ces organisations. De surcroît, il n’a manifesté aucun repentir.

Editor’s Note: Shervine Nafissi (@SNafissi) is a Phd Student in sports law and teaching assistant in corporate law at University of Lausanne (Switzerland), Faculty of Business and Economics (HEC).

Introduction

The factual background

The dispute concerns a TPO contract entitled “Economic Rights Participation Agreement” (hereinafter “ERPA”) concluded in 2012 between Sporting Lisbon and the investment fund Doyen Sports. The Argentine player was transferred in 2012 by Spartak Moscow to Sporting Lisbon for a transfer fee of €4 million. Actually, Sporting only paid €1 million of the fee while Doyen Sports financed the remaining €3 million. In return, the investment company became the owner of 75% of the economic rights of the player.[1] Thus, in this specific case, the Portuguese club was interested in recruiting Marcos Rojo but was unable to pay the transfer fee required by Spartak Moscow, so that they required the assistance of Doyen Sports. The latter provided them with the necessary funds to pay part of the transfer fee in exchange of an interest on the economic rights of the player.

Given that the facts and circumstances leading to the dispute, as well as the decision of the CAS, were fully described by Antoine Duval in last week’s blog of Doyen vs. Sporting, this blog will solely focus on the decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (“FSC”) following Sporting’s appeal against the CAS award. As a preliminary point, the role of the FSC in the appeal against CAS awards should be clarified.

Scope of the Federal Supreme Court’s review as for the international arbitral awards

Since the CAS has its seat in Lausanne, Switzerland, it has adopted its procedural rules in accordance with the 12^th chapter of the Swiss Private International Law Act[2], which provides a general legal framework for international arbitration in Switzerland. Under the relevant provisions of the Swiss PILA, arbitral awards are final upon their notification and can only be challenged before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court on a very limited number of grounds in order to prevent the parties to arbitrate again the dispute before a state Court.[3] Besides, in Swiss law, there is only one level of appeal against an international arbitration award before the Federal Supreme Court.[4] Thus, the FSC “ensures a uniformity in the review of arbitral awards and the development of a consistent court practice” be being the only one instance for appeals.[5] In this way, “arbitral awards are always reviewed by the same State court, ensuring consistency”.[6]

Setting aside the award may only be possible where the sole arbitrator has been improperly appointed or where the arbitral tribunal has been improperly constituted, where the arbitral tribunal has wrongly accepted or denied jurisdiction, where the arbitral tribunal has ruled beyond the claims submitted to it, or failed to decide one of the claims, where the principle of equal treatment of the parties or their right to be heard in an adversary procedure has not been observed, where the award is incompatible with public policy.[7] In casu, the examination of Sporting Lisbon's claims is based on the incompatibility of the award with public policy within the meaning of Art. 190 para. 2 let. e PILA.

As a reminder, an award is inconsistent with public policy if it disregards those essential and broadly recognized values which, according to the prevailing values in Switzerland, should be the founding stones of any legal order.[8] “An award is contrary to substantive public policy when it violates some fundamental principles of the law applicable to the merits to such an extent that it is no longer consistent with the notions of justice and system of values; among such principles are, in particular, the sanctity of contracts, compliance with the rules of good faith, the prohibition of abuse of rights, the prohibition of discriminatory and confiscatory measures, as well as the protection of incapable persons. (…). If it is not easy to define substantive public policy positively and to set its boundaries with precision, it is easier to exclude one item or another from it. The entire process of interpreting a contract and the legal consequences logically drawn therefrom are excluded; so is the interpretation of the statutory provisions of a private law body by an arbitral tribunal. Furthermore, it is not sufficient to show incompatibility with public policy – a concept more restrictive than arbitrariness – by showing that the evidence was wrongly assessed, a factual finding manifestly wrong, or a rule of law clearly violated”.[9]

Thus, the examination of this international arbitral award by the FSC is limited to the question of the compatibility of the said award with public policy, a notion more restrictive than arbitrariness.

The judgement of the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland - the merits

Sporting Lisbon’s defence

First, the Portuguese club tried to demonstrate that the CAS award violated material public policy by giving effect to one-sided and usurious contracts including excessive restriction.[10]

The claim is based on figures from the ERPA contract. Considering that Doyen Sports invested €3 million at the beginning, the company managed in all cases with 12.36% of minimum return insofar as it activated the Put Option, or 40% if the company requested payment of the Minimum Interest Fee. These two scenarios did not take into account the possibility that the player concerned by the ERPA be transferred with a capital gain, thus enabling Doyen Sports to get an investment return of about 400%, as was the case for the transfer of Marcos Rojo to Manchester United.

Sporting Lisbon compared this investment return to its own, as it would only be left with €1 million, i.e. the 5% of the transfer fee once the 75% for Doyen Sports’s share and the 20% for Spartak Moscow’s share deducted. Therefore, according to the Portuguese club, the ERPA, which it describes as a partiary loan[11], infringes the provisions on usury, would be a one-sided contract and, accordingly, would be null and void under Swiss law.[12]

Secondly, Sporting Lisbon explained that it gave up its freedom of action in an unacceptable manner under and art. 27 of the Swiss Civil Code (protection of one’s legal personality against excessive restrictions).[13] Indeed, some clauses of the ERPAs required Sporting Lisbon to accept a transfer offer deemed sufficiently high, if not Sporting would be forced to pay Doyen Sports 75% of the proposed transfer fee without receiving any fee, precisely because of the absence of any transfer.[14] According to the Portuguese club, Doyen Sports was not only in a position to ask Sporting Lisbon to transfer Marcos Rojo even if the club preferred to keep the player in its squad for purely sporting reasons, but also to require the club to make its best efforts to transfer the player before the end of his employment contract. Sporting Lisbon further underlined that the ERPA is made up of clauses stipulating that the club, conscious of the harshness and the severity of the consequences of certain clauses, takes the commitment to consider these clauses as fair and a necessary condition to Doyen’s interest in the player’s economic rights.

Thirdly, the club considers that the award of the CAS violates material public policy because it gives effect to contracts that seriously disregard the personality rights and the fundamental rights of the players. ERPA contracts would seriously undermine the players by putting pressure on the club by various clauses, including a clause obliging it to pay to Doyen Sports a minimum amount of €4.2 million (the Minimum Interest Fee) in the event that Marcos Rojo is not transferred to another club before the end of his employment contract. Such a clause would force Sporting to do everything possible to encourage the player to leave the club before the expiration of the employment contract. Thus, the player, even though he is not a party to the contract, would see his right to free economic development restricted, if not annihilated, in particular his ability to take the appropriate decisions for his sporting career and to freely choose the club for which he intends to play.[15] As regards fundamental rights, Sporting Lisbon argues that the ERPA-mechanism allows a third party to indirectly decide whether the player concerned by the ERPA must continue to play for his club or whether he must accept the conclusion of a contract with another club. Such a situation would violate the prohibition of forced labor set out in Art. 4 para. 2 ECHR and, more generally, human dignity.[16]

Finally, according to Sporting Lisbon, there should be a shared conception of moral standards in the field of sport in general and football in particular. These standards should not only prevent players from becoming an object of speculation, but also prevent investors to take advantage of the financial difficulties of the clubs. By taking advantage of clubs in financial difficulty, investors make indecent profits, while the clubs lose control of the situation from the sporting point of view. The standards would help to strengthen contractual stability, which is a cardinal principle of the transfer system.

The FSC’s Decision

The FSC first considered the figures provided by Sporting Lisbon with regard to the calculation of the minimum return of 12.36% (insofar as the Put Option is activated) and 40% (in case Doyen requests payment of the Minimum Interest Fee), and found that these figures were based on a calculation over three and five years respectively. Consequently, if the calculation of the investment return was made over one year, this would have given interest rates lower than 15%, which would be lawful under Swiss law. In addition, the arguments based on Doyen Sports’ investment return of about 400% with the transfer of Rojo were considered as irrelevant. These figures cannot be qualified as interests, but only as a kind of remuneration of the lender, which depends on the amount of the transfer fee, thus being similar to a partiary loan paid by giving a share to the lender on the profit realized by the borrower in a subsequent transfer operation.[17] Therefore, assuming that the relationship between the two parties is a lender-borrower relationship, the fact that Doyen Sports could acquire 75% of the future transfer fee of the player for whom it had initially financed the transfer at Sporting Lisbon for an equivalent share (i.e. €3 million out of €4 million), is not an usurious, one-sided contract, nor immoral.

Finally, the particular aspect of this type of contract relates to the enormous capital gains that can be made with the transfer operation, in casu about 400%. Nevertheless, the FSC considers that this capital gain depends on predominantly random elements.[18] The fact that Marcos Rojo played well at the 2014 World Cup, and that the Argentine selection reached the final of this competition, could not be foreseen. Thus, the sudden increase in his value on the transfer market is totally uncertain and cannot be invoked as a claim against Doyen Sports.[19] Moreover, the FSC recalled that the opposite situation was also possible, i.e. a drastic loss of the value of the player based on his performance in selection and club. These elements can therefore not be objectively taken into account by the parties. At the end of its reasoning on this issue, the FSC took the liberty to criticize Sporting Lisbon by saying that the club would not have been offended by such capital gain if it had been the sole beneficiary of the transfer fee.[20]

Secondly, the FSC analyzed the argument put forward by Sporting Lisbon that the ERPA contract would seriously undermine its freedom under Art. 27 CC. It should be kept in mind that, according to case-law, a breach of that provision does not necessarily mean a violation of public policy. Such a violation is instead conceivable only in case of a blatant and grievous violation of a fundamental right.[21] It must be considered in this respect that a contractual limitation of economic freedom is disproportionate within the meaning of Art. 27 (2) CC only when the debtor submits to someone else’s arbitrariness, gives up his economic freedom or restricts it in such a way that the foundation of his economic existence is jeopardized.[22] In casu, the FSC recalls that Sporting Lisbon is not inexperienced in the sharing of economic rights insofar as Marcos Rojo was not the only Sporting player affected by this type of contract.[23] It was the club that took the initiative to contact Doyen Sports to request its financial assistance. The conclusion of the contract was also preceded by lengthy negotiations during which the club was assisted by experts and lawyers. Finally, the dispute with Doyen Sports concerning Marcos Rojo was not in itself able to deteriorate the club’s financial situation, and thus preventing it from pursuing its economic activities.

Thirdly, the FSC examined the claim concerning the personality and fundamental rights of the players concerned by an ERPA.[24] The judges considered that the club limited itself to purely theoretical reflections without, however, demonstrating in concrete terms how the ERPA contract would seriously undermine the aforementioned rights. To the extent that the FSC has limited power to review international arbitral awards, it is hardly theoretical arguments that will demonstrate that a CAS award violates public policy according to Art. 190 para. 2 let. e PIL. Moreover, Sporting Lisbon’s argument concerning the personality and fundamental rights of Marcos Rojo is incompatible with the fact that the club has used the TPO mechanism for several other players. Again, the FSC questioned the sincerity of this argument had Sporting Lisbon received the full amount of the transfer fee. Furthermore, although the FSC recognizes the quality of the club to report a violation of the player’s personality rights[25], it is not established by the judges that the players themselves have complained of any such violation. On the contrary, when he signed for Manchester United, Marcos Rojo would have welcomed the fact of joining one of the best clubs in the world. Marcos Rojo, who was earning the equivalent of €1.14 million in Sporting Lisbon, currently earns about €4 million per year at the English club. Therefore, it is somewhat bold on the part of Sporting Lisbon, according to the FSC, to put forward the prohibition of forced labor or the violation of human dignity in such circumstances.

Finally, The FSC did not want to admit a notion of moral standards in the field of sport in general, and football in particular, in relation to the definition of the concept of material public policy.[26] Apart from the fact that it seems difficult to determine what is a moral standard in football, to adapt the concept of material public policy in relation to a particular activity and, more importantly, to a particular branch of the activity concerned - in this case, sport or football - would in some way soften the force and reduce the scope of the concept by leaving to FIFA the task of defining the notion of morality proper to football. The result would be a dilution of the notion of material public policy and, consequently, an increased difficulty in defining the contours of this concept, not to mention the formation of a casuistry that is not favorable to the predictability of the law.

In conclusion, the FSC recalls that the high mobility of professional footballers and their frequent transfers are caused by FIFA regulations, in particular the rules relating to the maximum duration of an employment contract binding a Player to a football club and the conditions of a subsequent transfer of that same player to another club, but also by the manner in which the transfer system is applied.[27]

For all these reasons, the Federal Supreme Court rejected Sporting Lisbon’s appeal against the CAS award of 21 December 2015.

Conclusion

Following the award of the CAS, the FSC confirmed the validity of the ERPA contracts under Swiss law. The mechanisms that make up the agreements signed by Doyen Sports and other companies that invest in the player transfer market are based on traditional legal instruments, including the assignment of future receivables. Thus, from a Swiss legal point of view, TPO agreements do not undergo the same moral reprimand administered by the highest football bodies, such as FIFA, UEFA or FIFPro.

Consequently, the legal battle that resulted in a victory for the “pro-TPOs” and the model proposed by the third parties, challenges the legitimacy of FIFA regulations and, more specifically, Art. 18^ter RSTP. The arguments used by Sporting Lisbon to justify the early termination of the ERPA contract are very similar, or even identical, to those presented by FIFA to justify the formal ban of the TPO in May 2015.

Nevertheless, the fact that Swiss contract law is quite liberal does not exclude the invalidation of an ERPA for material public policy reasons. As we have seen with Football Leaks, the TPO mechanism can constitute a definite threat to the financial situation of clubs, such as FC Twente. It all depends on the case brought before the courts. Indeed, the case of Sporting Lisbon was not necessarily the best opportunity to challenge the validity of the contract, as the action of Art. 21 CO was time-barred (as mentioned in the previous blog on the initial CAS award) and the player joined, voluntarily, one of the best clubs in the world.

I believe that Art. 21 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (unfair advantage) as well as Art. 27 CC and 28ss CC (personality rights) may, depending on the case before the CAS, be a legal basis for the invalidation of the contract. To the extent that a dispute arises between an inexperienced club and an investment company, the application of Art. 21 CO is not totally excluded. In addition, if a player whose economic rights have been assigned to a third party is obliged to leave the club against his will or even join a club for whom he does not wish to play, the provisions on personality rights may find an echo at the CAS.

All eyes are on other courts where ‘TPO-cases’ are pending. Most importantly, the CAS should soon issue an award in the Doyen Sports and FC Seraing United v. FIFA case. As a reminder, in January 2015, the Belgian club and Doyen Sports concluded an ERPA contract despite the FIFA ban being enacted in December 2014. As a result, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee sanctioned the Belgian club with a transfer ban (for four complete and consecutive registration periods) and a fine of CHF 150.000 for breaches relating to the third-party ownership and third-party influence. The CAS is therefore seized of an appeal against a disciplinary sanction imposed by FIFA and will be obliged to take Art. 18^ter RSTP into consideration and to judge whether the sanction is justified. It remains to be seen whether the arguments based on EU law by Doyen Sports and FC Seraing United will be taken into consideration. Indeed, both parties also filed a complaint, based on EU law, before the Belgian Courts to challenge the TPO ban.[28] For now, all these procedures have failed. It will be interesting to see how the CAS will judge the Seraing case that relates to the same mechanism although the two cases are fundamentally different. The Rojo case dealt with a contractual dispute before the ban, while the Belgian club and Doyen Sports challenged a sanction issued by FIFA and the ban as such.

In any event, TPO deals have rarely been so much under the public spotlight since their ban, and the legal suspense goes on…

[1]     Economic rights are the rights to future transfer fees from the transfer of the player to another club, and, unlike federative rights, economic rights can be divided between multiple parties. See, among others, W. Tyler Hall, After the Ban: The Financial Landscape of International Soccer After Third-Party Ownership, Oregon Law Review, Vol. 94, 2015, pp. 179 – 221.

[2]     Hereinafter “PILA”.

[3]     Mavromati, Despina, The Role of the Swiss Federal Tribunal and Its Impact on the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), 29 September 2016.

[4]     Antonio Rigozzi, L'arbitrage international en matière de sport, Bâle, (Helbing & Lichtenhahn), 2^ème édition, 2005.

[5]     Niederer Kraft & Frey, Swiss Arbitration – Practical Aspects and New Developments, Publication 19, 2015, p. 28.

[6]     Ibidem.

[7]     Art. 190 para. 2 PILA.

[8]     ATF 132 III 389 consid. 2.2.3.

[9]     Judgment of the FSC, 4A_116/2016, December 13rd 2016, par. 4.1. The English translation is based on the Judgment of the FSC, 4A_304/2013, March 3rd 2014, par. 5.1.1 made by http://www.swissarbitrationdecisions.com (emphasis added).

[10]    Judgment of the FSC, 4A_116/2016, December 13rd 2016, par. 4.2.1.

[11]    Under Swiss law, the “partiary” loan is a form of loan in which the remuneration of the lender consists in a share of the borrower’s earnings. The “partiary” loan has a random element: the remuneration of the lender depends on the success of a specific business or transaction of the borrower. In casu, the ERPA can be qualified as a “partiary” loan insofar as the transaction depends on the profit made by Sporting in case of a transfer of Marcos Rojo and provides for a share of Doyen in Sporting’s success. See, Bovet / Richa, CO 312 N 6 in : Commentaire romand Code des obligations I, Pierre Tercier / Marc Amstutz (édit.), 2^ème édition, Bâle, 2012 ; Pierre Tercier / Laurent Bieri / Pascal G. Favre, Les contrats spéciaux, 5^ème édition, Genève Zürich Bâle (Schulthess) 2016, N 2539.

[12]    Judgment of the FSC, 4A_116/2016, December 13rd 2016, par. 4.2.1.

[13]    Hereinafter “CC”.

[14]    Judgment of the FSC, 4A_116/2016, December 13rd 2016, par. 4.2.1.

[15]    Judgment of the FSC, 4A_116/2016, December 13rd 2016, par. 4.3.1.

[16]    Ibidem.

[17]    Judgment of the FSC, 4A_116/2016, December 13rd 2016, par. 4.2.3.

[18]    Ibidem.

[19]    Ibidem.

[20]   Judgment of the FSC, 4A_116/2016, December 13rd 2016, par. 4.3.3.

[21]    Judgment of the FSC, 4P.12/2000, June 14^th 2000, par. 5b. aa.

[22]    Ibidem.

[23]    In March 2013, 35 to 40 players' economic rights were shared with various investment funds. See CAS 2014/0/3781, par. 217.

[24]   Judgment of the FSC, 4A_116/2016, December 13rd 2016, par. 4.3.3.

[25]    According to the exceptio de jure tertii principle, see Judgment of the FSC, 4A_304/2013, March 3rd 2014, par. 3.

[26]   Judgment of the FSC, 4A_116/2016, December 13rd 2016, par. 4.2.3.

[27]    Judgment of the FSC, 4A_116/2016, December 13rd 2016, par. 4.3.3.

[28]   Patricia Moyersoen, La décision du TAS du 21 décembre 2015 à propos des contrats de TPO passés entre le Sporting Club du Portugal et la société Doyen Sports Investments, http://www.droitdusport.com/; http://www.rfc-seraing.be/audience-au-tas-de-lausanne/.