CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2020/A/7468 — São Paulo FC v. FIFA & Federación de Fútbol de Chile & CD La Serena & Lucas Fasson Dos Santos

"São Paulo v. FIFA & La Serena" · CAS dismissed São Paulo's appeal for lack of standing as it was not a party to the FIFA provisional ITC proceedings.

What happened in São Paulo v. FIFA & La Serena

São Paulo FC signed an employment contract with Brazilian player Lucas Fasson Dos Santos on 6 July 2017, valid until 30 June 2021. On 1 June 2020, the player notified São Paulo of his intention to terminate after three years, relying on Article 18(2) RSTP. He signed with Chilean club CD La Serena on 8 July 2020. When the FFCH requested an ITC from the CBF, the CBF refused on the basis the contract had not expired. The FFCH escalated to FIFA, and on 23 September 2020 the Single Judge of the FIFA Players' Status Committee granted a provisional ITC to register the player as an amateur for La Serena, expressly without prejudice to any contractual dispute. São Paulo appealed to CAS. The Sole Arbitrator dismissed the appeal on the threshold ground that São Paulo lacked standing to appeal: the FIFA proceedings were purely administrative, involving only the CBF and FFCH as parties, and the Appealed Decision expressly preserved all contractual claims. The case matters because it clarifies that clubs are not parties to inter-association ITC proceedings and therefore cannot appeal provisional registration decisions, even where their contractual interests are engaged.

Procedural history of CAS 2020/A/7468

On 8 September 2020, the FFCH requested a provisional ITC through FIFA TMS for the player to register with CD La Serena; the CBF rejected the request on the basis the First Contract had not expired. On 21 September 2020, the FFCH formally requested FIFA PSC intervention. On 23 September 2020, the Single Judge of the FIFA PSC granted the provisional ITC with immediate effect, noting the decision was without prejudice to any contractual dispute. Grounds were notified to São Paulo on 2 October 2020. São Paulo filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS on 23 October 2020 (within the 21-day deadline under Article 58(1) FIFA Statutes), followed by an Appeal Brief on 2 November 2020. All Respondents filed Answers by 14 January 2021. No hearing was held; the Sole Arbitrator decided on written submissions pursuant to Article R57 of the Code.

Key holdings in CAS 2020/A/7468

• São Paulo FC lacked standing to appeal the FIFA provisional ITC decision because it was not a party to the first-instance proceedings, which involved only the CBF and FFCH as the relevant national associations.
• The provisional ITC mechanism under Article 8.2(7) of Annexe 3 of the FIFA RSTP is a purely administrative procedure that does not adjudicate the underlying contractual dispute and is expressly without prejudice to it.
• The scope of a CAS appeal cannot exceed the scope of the appealed decision; contractual arguments raised by a non-party cannot create standing to appeal where none otherwise exists.
• FIFA RSTP (August 2020 version) applies primarily, with Swiss law subsidiarily, to proceedings whose scope is limited to review of FIFA ITC proceedings; Brazilian law is not applicable.
• A club's pursuit of contractual remedies before national courts does not confer standing to challenge a separate FIFA administrative ITC decision before CAS.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first characterised the nature of the FIFA proceedings: the FFCH's request for a provisional ITC under Article 8.2(7) of Annexe 3 of the FIFA RSTP was a purely administrative procedure between national associations (CBF and FFCH), aimed at protecting the player's freedom of movement and right to work, without touching the merits of any contractual dispute. Only the CBF and FFCH were parties before the Single Judge; documents from the clubs were submitted by the associations as informational exhibits, not as party submissions. From this characterisation, the Sole Arbitrator concluded that São Paulo was not a party at first instance and therefore prima facie lacked standing. He then examined whether São Paulo had a legitimate interest sufficient to confer standing despite non-party status, applying CAS jurisprudence on this point. He rejected this: the Appealed Decision was expressly without prejudice to contractual claims; São Paulo's rights were not affected by the administrative ITC grant; and São Paulo had already exercised its contractual rights before Brazilian courts. The Sole Arbitrator rejected the argument that raising contractual issues in the appeal could manufacture standing, holding that the appeal's scope is bounded by the scope of the appealed decision. Having dismissed the appeal on standing, he did not address the merits.

Why São Paulo v. FIFA & La Serena matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award confirms that professional football clubs have no standing to appeal FIFA provisional ITC decisions before CAS because such proceedings are purely administrative, conducted exclusively between national associations. The ruling draws a clear boundary between the administrative ITC mechanism and substantive contractual disputes, reinforcing that a provisional registration grant is without prejudice to any contractual claim and that clubs must pursue breach-of-contract remedies through the DRC or competent national courts rather than by challenging the ITC process itself.

Frequently asked questions about São Paulo v. FIFA & La Serena

Did São Paulo FC have standing to appeal the FIFA provisional ITC decision at CAS?

No. The Sole Arbitrator held that São Paulo lacked standing to appeal because it was not a party to the first-instance FIFA proceedings, which involved only the CBF and FFCH as national associations. The Sole Arbitrator also found that São Paulo had no legitimate interest because the Appealed Decision was expressly without prejudice to any contractual dispute and did not affect São Paulo's contractual rights.

Can a club use a CAS appeal against a provisional ITC decision to obtain the return of a player or enforce a penalty clause?

No. The Sole Arbitrator ruled that the scope of a CAS appeal cannot exceed the scope of the appealed decision. Because the FIFA provisional ITC proceedings were purely administrative and did not address the contractual relationship, São Paulo could not use the appeal to seek the player's return or enforce the penalty clause in the First Contract. Those remedies must be pursued before the competent contractual forum.

What is the legal nature of FIFA provisional ITC proceedings under Article 8.2(7) of Annexe 3 of the RSTP?

The Sole Arbitrator characterised them as a purely administrative procedure between national associations aimed at protecting a player's freedom of movement and right to work. The proceedings do not adjudicate the underlying contractual dispute, and any decision granting provisional registration is expressly without prejudice to the merits of any contractual claim, as stated in Article 8.2(7) of Annexe 3 of the FIFA RSTP.

Which law applies to a CAS appeal reviewing a FIFA provisional ITC decision where the underlying employment contract specifies Brazilian law?

The Sole Arbitrator applied the FIFA RSTP (August 2020 version) primarily and Swiss law subsidiarily, pursuant to Article R58 of the CAS Code and Article 57.2 of the FIFA Statutes. Brazilian law was held inapplicable because the scope of the proceedings was limited to the FIFA ITC mechanism, not the employment contract, and FIFA is domiciled in Switzerland.

Topics: Transfers, agents, TPO & sell-on clauses 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.