CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2019/A/6298 — Manchester City Football Club Limited v. Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)

"Manchester City v. UEFA (FFP Referral)" · CAS declared Manchester City's appeal against UEFA's CFCB Investigatory Chamber referral decision inadmissible for failure to exhaust internal remedies.

What happened in Manchester City v. UEFA (FFP Referral)

Following the 'Football Leaks' publications in late 2018, UEFA's CFCB Investigatory Chamber formally opened an investigation into Manchester City FC on 7 March 2019. On 15 May 2019, the Investigatory Chamber issued a Referral Decision sending the case to the Adjudicatory Chamber. MCFC also alleged that confidential information had been leaked to the media on multiple occasions (the 'Leaks'), and characterised the Chief Investigator's 20 May 2019 letter rejecting those allegations as a separate 'Leaks Decision'. MCFC appealed both decisions to CAS on 24 May 2019, also claiming damages and requesting provisional measures. UEFA sought bifurcation on admissibility; the Panel granted it. The Panel held that a referral decision of the Investigatory Chamber is not a 'final decision' within Article 34 CFCB Procedural Rules and Article 27 CFCB Procedural Rules, and that MCFC had not exhausted internal remedies by proceeding before the Adjudicatory Chamber first. No exception to the exhaustion rule was warranted: the Adjudicatory Chamber proceedings were not illusory, no irreparable harm was established, and the alleged leaks did not demonstrably compromise impartiality. The 'Leaks Decision' was found not to be a decision at all, and the damages claim could not stand alone in an appeal arbitration. The appeal was declared inadmissible in its entirety. The case matters because it clarifies when IC referral decisions are directly appealable to CAS and sets the threshold for exceptions to the exhaustion-of-remedies rule in UEFA CFCB proceedings.

Procedural history of CAS 2019/A/6298

On 7 March 2019, UEFA's CFCB Investigatory Chamber formally opened an investigation into MCFC. On 15 May 2019, the Investigatory Chamber issued the Referral Decision sending the case to the Adjudicatory Chamber. On 20 May 2019, the CFCB Chief Investigator rejected MCFC's requests to suspend proceedings and investigate alleged media leaks. On 24 May 2019, MCFC filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS against both the Referral Decision and the so-called Leaks Decision under Articles R47 and R48 of the 2019 CAS Code, also seeking provisional measures and damages. UEFA filed a combined Answer and Request for Bifurcation on 24 June 2019, asking CAS to declare the appeal inadmissible. On 15 July 2019, the Panel granted bifurcation on admissibility and suspended UEFA's deadline to file a full Answer. A hearing strictly limited to admissibility was held on 15 October 2019 in Lausanne. The Panel issued this preliminary award on 15 November 2019.

Key holdings in CAS 2019/A/6298

• A referral decision of the CFCB Investigatory Chamber under Article 14(1)(d) CFCB Procedural Rules is not a 'final decision' within the meaning of Article 34 CFCB Procedural Rules and therefore cannot, in principle, be appealed directly to CAS.
• Only once the Adjudicatory Chamber renders one of the decisions listed in Article 27 CFCB Procedural Rules has a final decision been rendered that can be appealed to CAS.
• Exceptions to the exhaustion-of-internal-remedies rule require a showing of irreparable harm, wholly illusory or ineffective internal proceedings, or a clear outcome from the outset; MCFC met none of these thresholds.
• The CFCB Chief Investigator's letter of 20 May 2019 rejecting MCFC's leak allegations is not an appealable decision but merely a communication of information that did not dispose of the matter in dispute.
• A standalone damages claim cannot be pursued in an Appeal Arbitration Proceeding absent an admissible appeal against a decision; the correct forum is Ordinary Arbitration Proceedings.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Panel began with Article 34 CFCB Procedural Rules, which limits CAS appeals to 'final decisions' of the CFCB. Contrasting Article 14(1) (Investigatory Chamber powers, headed 'End of the investigation') with Article 27 (Adjudicatory Chamber 'Final decisions'), the Panel concluded that finality attaches only to the latter. A referral decision does not end the matter; the Adjudicatory Chamber may still dismiss the entire case. The Panel analogised the IC/AC structure to a first-instance/appeals-body relationship, finding MCFC no more prejudiced than any party convicted at first instance. On the AC Milan cases, the Panel distinguished them: UEFA's prior argument that referral decisions must be appealed directly concerned only the specific sub-issue of a refusal to conclude a settlement agreement, not referral decisions generally. The Panel acknowledged that UEFA's inconsistent conduct created legal uncertainty — relevant to costs but not to interpretation of the rules. On exceptions to exhaustion, the Panel applied the standard from Rigozzi/Hasler and Mavromati/Reeb: remedies must be illusory, inadequate, or cause irreparable harm. The Adjudicatory Chamber was neither; it could address all of MCFC's procedural complaints. On the leaks, the Panel found them 'worrisome' and not entirely without merit on a prima facie basis, but held that a confidentiality breach does not automatically impair impartiality, and that the appropriate remedy is removal of the individual, not a direct CAS appeal.

Why Manchester City v. UEFA (FFP Referral) matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award authoritatively establishes that CFCB Investigatory Chamber referral decisions are not 'final decisions' directly appealable to CAS under Article 34 CFCB Procedural Rules, and that clubs must proceed before the Adjudicatory Chamber before turning to CAS. It also sets a high threshold for exceptions to the exhaustion-of-remedies rule in UEFA CFCB proceedings, clarifies that alleged confidentiality breaches (leaks) do not automatically justify bypassing internal remedies, and distinguishes the AC Milan precedents as limited to the specific sub-issue of refusal to conclude a settlement agreement.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2018/A/5808 AC Milan v. UEFA CAS 2019/A/6083 & 6261 AC Milan v. UEFA CAS 2014/A/3703

Frequently asked questions about Manchester City v. UEFA (FFP Referral)

Was Manchester City's CAS appeal against the UEFA CFCB referral decision admissible?

No. The Panel held that a referral decision of the CFCB Investigatory Chamber under Article 14(1)(d) CFCB Procedural Rules is not a 'final decision' within Article 34 CFCB Procedural Rules and therefore cannot be appealed directly to CAS. MCFC was required to first proceed before the Adjudicatory Chamber, whose decisions under Article 27 CFCB Procedural Rules are the ones that qualify as final and appealable.

Did the Football Leaks and alleged media leaks by UEFA justify Manchester City bypassing the Adjudicatory Chamber and going straight to CAS?

No. The Panel found the leaks 'worrisome' and acknowledged MCFC's complaints were not entirely without merit on a prima facie basis, particularly regarding the First, Second and Fifth Leaks. However, it held that a breach of confidentiality obligations does not automatically impair impartiality, that no irreparable harm was established, and that the appropriate remedy was removal of the individual concerned rather than a direct CAS appeal.

Did the AC Milan CAS cases (CAS 2018/A/5808 and CAS 2019/A/6083 & 6261) support Manchester City's argument that referral decisions are directly appealable to CAS?

The Panel rejected this argument. It distinguished the AC Milan cases as concerning the specific sub-issue of a refusal to conclude a settlement agreement within a referral decision, not referral decisions generally. The Panel acknowledged that UEFA's inconsistent conduct across those cases created legal uncertainty relevant to costs allocation, but held it could not alter the interpretation of the applicable rules.

Can Manchester City claim damages from UEFA for the media leaks in these CAS proceedings?

No, not in this appeal arbitration. The Panel held that a standalone damages claim cannot be pursued in an Appeal Arbitration Proceeding absent an admissible appeal against a decision; the correct forum would be Ordinary Arbitration Proceedings. Because the appeals against the Referral Decision and the Leaks Decision were both declared inadmissible, the damages claim was also rejected as inadmissible.

Topics: Art. 17 RSTP & contract termination at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.