Can Sporting Succession Exist Without Club Dissolution? Lessons from a recent CAS decision (CAS 2023/A/9809)

This article examines the recent award by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) in the case of CAS 2023/A/9809 Karpaty FC v. FIFA, Cristóbal Márquez Crespo and FC Karpaty Halych (“Award”). The Award examined the issue of sporting succession and duty of diligence of a creditor under the 2023 edition of the FIFA Disciplinary Code (“FDC”)^[1]. It is an interesting case as, unlike in other sporting succession cases^[2], the original debtor club continued to exist, was affiliated to the national member association and did not undergo any insolvency, bankruptcy or liquidation procedure.

The Award analyses the procedural rights of parties and elements which are taken into consideration whilst determining if a sporting succession exists between two clubs or entities along with its consequences.

The Award is available here^[3].

This article will examine:

• Existing regulations on sporting succession
• Key facts and background
  • Timeline of events
• Proceedings before FIFA Disciplinary Committee
• Proceedings before CAS
  • Procedural rights of parties and de novo power of CAS (power to hear the matter afresh)
  • How is sporting succession analysed under the existing FIFA regulations?
  • Is fraud or abuse a prerequisite for sporting succession?
  • Diligence of a creditor and its consequences
• Key lessons from the case
• Conclusion

The focus of the article will be to analyse, if and, how this case is different from the existing jurisprudence^[4] on sporting succession. In that regard, the article will focus on analysing if there can be sporting succession when multiple (new) clubs including the (original) debtor continue to exist at the same time.