FIFA's Two-Year Limitation Period Under Scrutiny: Lessons from Recent CAS Jurisprudence
This article discusses a recent award published by the Court of Arbitration for Sport in the case CAS 2024/A/11060 X. v. Club Y[1], which tackled the two year limitation period relating to monetary disputes regarding player and managers contracts . This award, as well as the few others referred to in this article, examines the 2-year limitation set forth in the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players[2].
Interestingly in this case the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel has ruled that this limitation period is “FIFA-specific” and shall not be understood as a statute of limitations within the civil law meaning. This constitutes a noticeable shift of approach in comparison to the previous CAS jurisprudence on the matter. For ease of reference for readers Article 23(3) of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (FIFA RSTP) provides that:
“The Football Tribunal shall not hear any case subject to these regulations if more than two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute. Application of this time limit shall be examined ex officio [of its own motion] in each individual case.” [emphasis added]
This limitation period applies to cases under FIFA Football Tribunal's competence (see Article 22 of RSTP), essentially, international disputes concerning employment, contractual stability and transfer-related matters.
This article provides an analysis of this CAS award and compares this with previous awards to draw out key themes that emerge from this line of cases and what players and clubs need to consider when bringing claims for financial disputes under the RSTP.
Article Outline
- Factual Background
- Appeal Before CAS & the Player’s Arguments
- CAS Decision
-
Application of Article 23(3) of RSTP in Previous CAS Awards
- CAS 2012/A/2919 FC Seoul v. Newcastle Jets FC – Recognition of a Lacuna in the FIFA RSTP
- CAS 2018/A/6045 Manuel Henrique Tavares Fernandes v. FC Lokomotiv Moscow – Questioning the Nature of Limitation
- CAS 2020/A/7154 ARIS FC v. Ikechukwu John Kingsley Ibeh & FIFA - Affirmation of Procedural Nature
- Evolution of CAS Jurisprudence
- Key Takeaways
To continue reading or watching login or register here
Already a member? Sign in
Get access to all of the expert analysis and commentary at LawInSport including articles, webinars, conference videos and podcast transcripts. Find out more here.
- Tags: Code of Sports Related Arbitration (CAS Code) | Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) | FIFA | FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (FIFA DRC) | FIFA Regulation on Status and Transfer of Players (FIFA RSTP) | Regulations | Tunisia
Related Articles
- The importance of meeting deadlines when appealing to the CAS: Eboué v FIFA
- How CAS deals with excessive contractual penalties in football
- Player contracts, liquidated damages & the principle of reciprocity at FIFA & CAS
- Rubiales v FIFA CAS Award: Standards of acceptable conduct and proportional sanctions
- The Iñigo Martínez case: Testing the limits of FIFA’s 5-day ineligibility rule
- How can FIFA enforce agent rules? CAS panel overturns agent suspension in Beckett v FIFA case
- Indefinite provisional suspensions and competence under the FFAR: CAS Panel reinstates suspended agent licence in Tullio Tinti v FIFA
Written by
Karolina Letniowska
Karolina is an advocate working at Kancelaria Prawna Maciej Bałaziński i Współpracownicy. She has completed the UEFA Football Law Programme and has done her LL. M. at the University of Gdańsk and LL. M. in Sustainable Development at the University of Milan. Karolina is a member of the Women In Sports Law (WISLaw) and the International Sport Lawyer Association (ISLA).
