-
The reference in a settlement agreement between a club and UEFA to break-even requirements for future monitoring periods is understood to be a dynamic reference to future editions of the UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations (UEFA CL&FFPR). It would be unacceptable if only the edition of the UEFA CL&FFPR applicable at the time of the conclusion of the settlement agreement would be applied to the club, whereas other clubs, not falling under any settlement regime, would have to comply with the subsequent editions of the UEFA CL&FFPR for the same monitoring periods.
-
The principle of lex mitior does not permit one to pick and choose between the most favourable individual provisions from different sets of rules; such would indeed offend against the principle of legality. Rather, the most favourable set of rules is to be applied as a whole.
-
According to the UEFA CL&FFPR, an entity is related to a reporting entity (the club) if, inter alia, both are controlled, jointly controlled or significantly influenced by the same government. “Significant influence” is the power to participate in the financial and operating policy decisions of an entity, but is not control over those policies. It is not about being in a position to take decision, but about the power to participate in the decision-making process. In other words, to qualify an entity as related in accordance with the UEFA CL&FFPR, requires some sort of direct influence. The clearest example of such direct influence is the competence of taking decisions, be it in a personal capacity or in the framework of a committee. If it is by means of a committee, the individual member or members must have a certain influence on the decision-making process.
-
Media releases, published by a club itself on its website, allow a prima facie presumption that such information is correct. The burden of proof subsequently shifts to the club to prove that such media releases are incorrect.
-
Whenever an association uses its discretion to impose a sanction, CAS will have regard to that association’s expertise but, if having done so, the CAS panel considers nonetheless that the sanction is disproportionate, it must, given its de novo powers of review, be free to say so and apply the appropriate sanction.
-
The pronunciation of an exclusion from participation in future competitions is an appropriate sanction for violating the terms of a settlement agreement. Indeed, a settlement agreement is concluded as a consequence of the fact that the club has already violated the UEFA CL&FFPR before and is therefore afforded a second chance. If the club fails to comply with the terms of this second chance, a serious sanction is warranted and the exclusion from participation in a future edition of any of the UEFA club competitions is not disproportionate.
Why not join us?
Football Legal is an independent media publishing football law contents on a daily basis dedicated to all football law practitioners (lawyers, clubs, federations, intermediaries, football stakeholders, etc.).
Register today and stay tuned to the latest legal news.
Get started