CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2021/A/7650 — Club Atlético de Madrid S.A.D. v. FIFA

"Trippier" · CAS dismissed Atlético's challenge to FIFA's worldwide extension of Kieran Trippier's ten-week betting-information suspension imposed by The FA.

What happened in Trippier

Kieran Trippier, while registered with Tottenham Hotspur and The FA, provided privileged information about his impending transfer to Atlético de Madrid that third parties used for betting. After transferring to Atlético in July 2019, The FA investigated and, on 18 December 2020, sanctioned Trippier with a ten-week suspension and a £70,000 fine for breaching Rule E8(1)(b) of The FA Handbook. The same day, The FA requested FIFA to extend the sanction worldwide under Article 66 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC). On 23 December 2020, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee granted the extension. Atlético appealed internally; the FIFA Appeal Committee upheld the extension on 18 January 2021. Atlético then appealed to CAS, arguing inter alia that The FA lacked jurisdiction post-transfer, that FIFA acted ultra vires, that the ne bis in idem principle was violated, and that Article 66 FDC requirements were not met. CAS dismissed all grounds. The panel confirmed that a national association retains disciplinary authority over conduct committed while a player was registered with it, applying the tempus regit actum principle. It also confirmed that Article 66 proceedings are not a second sanction but an extension mechanism, and that all procedural requirements of Article 66 FDC were satisfied. The case matters because it authoritatively defines the jurisdictional reach of national associations post-transfer and clarifies the scope and limits of FIFA's worldwide sanction-extension procedure.

Procedural history of CAS 2021/A/7650

On 18 December 2020, The FA's Regulatory Commission sanctioned Trippier with a ten-week suspension (effective 21 December 2020 to 28 February 2021) and a £70,000 fine for breaching Rule E8(1)(b) of The FA Handbook. The same day, The FA requested FIFA to extend the sanction worldwide under Article 66 FDC. On 23 December 2020, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee extended the sanction to have worldwide effect. On 2 January 2021, the FIFA Appeal Committee provisionally suspended the extension at Atlético's request. On 13 January 2021, Atlético formally appealed to the FIFA Appeal Committee. On 18 January 2021, the FIFA Appeal Committee rejected the appeal and upheld the worldwide extension. Atlético filed a Statement of Appeal at CAS on 29 January 2021. Two requests for provisional measures at CAS were rejected on 22 January and 5 February 2021 respectively. Atlético withdrew its damages claim of EUR 1,165,506.84 on 16 April 2021. A hearing was held by video conference on 16 September 2021.

Key holdings in CAS 2021/A/7650

• A national association retains disciplinary authority over conduct committed by a player while registered with it, even after that player has transferred to another association, applying the tempus regit actum principle.
• Under Article 66 FDC, FIFA and CAS have both the power and the duty to review whether the sanctioning national association had authority to impose the sanction, as an implicit requirement derived from Article 66(5)(e) FDC and procedural public order.
• Article 66 FDC proceedings to extend a sanction worldwide do not constitute a second sanction and therefore do not violate the ne bis in idem principle; the player served the original ten-week suspension only once.
• The FIFA Disciplinary Committee has authority under Article 66 FDC to extend sanctions arising from infringements of an ethical nature (including sports betting), and this power is not limited to infringements codified in the FDC as opposed to the FIFA Code of Ethics.
• A club has standing to appeal a sanction imposed on its player before CAS pursuant to Article 58(2) FDC, which permits substitution of the player as litigant, even where the player has not appealed and has already served the sanction.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The panel applied a literal and systematic interpretation of Article 66 FDC throughout. On jurisdiction, it reasoned that Article 66(8)'s prohibition on reviewing the 'substance' of a national decision means only that FIFA/CAS cannot re-examine whether an infringement occurred; it does not bar review of the sanctioning body's authority, which is an implicit requirement under Article 66(5)(e) FDC's public-order condition. Applying tempus regit actum — consistently upheld in CAS jurisprudence — the panel held that the relevant moment is when the conduct occurred, not when proceedings commenced, analogising to contractual breach claims filed after contract expiry. On ne bis in idem, the panel drew on Swiss Federal Court case 4A_462/2019 and CAS 2015/A/4184 to characterise Article 66 proceedings as analogous to recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments under the New York Convention, not a fresh disciplinary process. On the 'serious infringement' requirement, the panel held the Article 66(1) list is non-exhaustive ('in particular but not limited to'), and that providing privileged transfer information for betting undermines integrity and transparency of the transfer market. On Article 66(5)(d), the panel applied the English text ('compatible') over the Spanish ('abide by'), finding Rule E8(1)(b) compatible with Article 26 FCE. The panel rejected Atlético's public-order argument because procedural guarantees are assessed from the perspective of the accused (the player), not the club, which was not a member of The FA.

Why Trippier matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award is the leading CAS authority on three intersecting issues: (1) the temporal scope of a national association's disciplinary jurisdiction survives a player's international transfer, applying tempus regit actum; (2) Article 66 FDC worldwide-extension proceedings are not a second sanction and do not trigger ne bis in idem; and (3) the FIFA Disciplinary Committee's Article 66 power extends to sanctions for ethical/betting infringements, not merely field-of-play misconduct. The award also clarifies that clubs have substituted-litigant standing under Article 58(2) FDC to appeal player sanctions before CAS.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2015/A/4184 CAS 2005/A/889 CAS 2013/A/3256 CAS 2011/O/2422 CAS 2009/A/1880-1881 CAS 2018/A/5734 (Swiss Federal Court 4A_462/2019)

Frequently asked questions about Trippier

Did The FA have jurisdiction to sanction Trippier after he transferred to Atlético Madrid?

Yes. The CAS panel held that The FA retained disciplinary authority because the infringing conduct — providing privileged transfer information used for betting — occurred while Trippier was still registered with Tottenham Hotspur and The FA. Applying the principle tempus regit actum, the panel ruled that the date disciplinary proceedings commence is irrelevant; what matters is when the conduct occurred. The FA's authority was therefore unaffected by the subsequent transfer.

Did FIFA's worldwide extension of Trippier's ban violate the ne bis in idem principle?

No. The panel found that Article 66 FDC proceedings are not a second disciplinary process but an extension mechanism analogous to recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment under the New York Convention. Trippier served his ten-week suspension only once. The panel relied on Swiss Federal Court case 4A_462/2019 and CAS 2015/A/4184 to confirm that two intrinsically linked but distinct proceedings do not contravene ne bis in idem.

Can Atlético Madrid (or any club) appeal a FIFA sanction imposed on its player even if the player himself does not appeal?

Yes. Article 58(2) FDC expressly grants clubs the right to appeal decisions sanctioning their players, which the panel characterised as a 'substitution of litigant' mechanism. The club steps into the player's shoes and may exercise all rights the player would have had. The player's decision not to appeal and his having already served the sanction did not deprive Atlético of standing, though the panel found the club retained a legitimate interest only in the declaratory/reputational aspect of the claim.

What does 'serious infringement' mean under Article 66(1) FDC, and was Trippier's betting-information offence serious enough?

The panel held that the list in Article 66(1) FDC — discrimination, match manipulation, misconduct against officials, forgery — is non-exhaustive ('in particular but not limited to'), and seriousness is assessed case by case. Trippier's breach of Rule E8(1)(b) of The FA Handbook — providing privileged transfer information used by third parties for betting — was held to be serious because it involved a conflict of interest and undermined the integrity and transparency of the football transfer market. The panel also rejected the argument that Article 12 RSTP's three-month threshold sets a minimum seriousness bar for Article 66 FDC purposes.

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.