CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2023/A/10091 — Karpaty FC LLC v. FIFA & HNK Cibalia Vinkovci & FC Karpaty Halych

"Karpaty" · CAS upheld FIFA's transfer ban on Karpaty FC LLC as sporting successor of CPF Karpaty LTD, liable for EUR 48,986 training compensation owed to HNK Cibalia.

What happened in Karpaty

Karpaty FC LLC, a Ukrainian club playing in the Persha Liga, appealed a FIFA administration decision of 12 October 2023 that declared it the sporting successor of CPF Karpaty LTD and imposed a transfer ban on it. The underlying debt arose from a DRC decision of 17 May 2023 ordering CPF to pay HNK Cibalia Vinkovci EUR 48,986 in training compensation plus 5% interest p.a. from 31 August 2019. When CPF failed to pay within 45 days, HNK requested FIFA to enforce the ban against Karpaty as CPF's sporting successor. Karpaty argued: (1) the FIFA administration lacked competence to assess sporting succession; (2) FC Karpaty Halych (FKH), not Karpaty, was CPF's true successor; and (3) the failure to join FKH in first-instance proceedings violated due process. Sole Arbitrator Hovell dismissed all grounds. He held that Article 21(7) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code expressly empowers 'FIFA' — including its administration — to assess sporting succession during enforcement. He found Karpaty's adoption of CPF's name, logo, colours, stadium, sporting history and fan base, all within a short timeframe as CPF faded, established sporting succession. The case matters because it confirms the FIFA administration's enforcement competence under Article 21(7) FDC and reinforces that 'time' and the totality of circumstances — not a numerical count of criteria — govern sporting succession analysis.

Procedural history of CAS 2023/A/10091

On 17 May 2023, the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber issued decision TMS 8894 ordering CPF Karpaty LTD to pay HNK Cibalia Vinkovci EUR 48,986 as training compensation plus 5% interest p.a. from 31 August 2019, with a transfer-ban sanction for non-payment within 45 days. FIFA notified the decision on 2 June 2023. On 21 August 2023, more than 45 days later, HNK requested FIFA to impose the ban on Karpaty as CPF's sporting successor. On 12 October 2023, the FIFA administration issued the Appealed Decision (reference FDD-16306), declaring Karpaty the sporting successor of CPF and directing the Ukrainian Association of Football to implement the transfer ban. Karpaty filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS on 31 October 2023, within the 21-day deadline. HNK contested admissibility, arguing Karpaty had not exhausted internal FIFA remedies. The Sole Arbitrator rejected that challenge, finding the appeal did not need to pass through the FIFA Appeal Committee. A virtual hearing was held on 15 May 2024, and post-hearing comments on related awards CAS 2023/A/9809 and CAS 2022/A/9288 were exchanged through February 2025.

Key holdings in CAS 2023/A/10091

• The FIFA administration was competent to assess sporting succession and issue the transfer-ban enforcement decision under Article 21(7) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code, which grants 'FIFA' — not solely the Disciplinary Committee — authority over enforcement including recognition of sporting successors.
• Karpaty's appeal was admissible directly to CAS without first going to the FIFA Appeal Committee, because the Appealed Decision was not a decision of the Disciplinary Committee and, even if it were, Article 61(1)(e) of the FDC excludes Article 21 decisions from the Appeal Committee's jurisdiction.
• HNK Cibalia Vinkovci had standing to be sued as a respondent because it is the principal beneficiary of the DRC Decision and would be materially affected if the transfer ban were overturned on appeal.
• Karpaty FC LLC is the sporting successor of CPF Karpaty LTD, having adopted CPF's name, exact logo, colours, stadium, sporting history and fan base within a short timeframe as CPF declined, regardless of separate legal entities and different shareholders.
• It is not a prerequisite for sporting succession that the original debtor club ceases to exist; Article 21(4) of the FDC expressly contemplates that both the old and new club may simultaneously be non-compliant parties.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator applied a holistic, fact-specific analysis rather than a mechanical count of criteria. On competence, he read Article 21(7) FDC — which says 'FIFA will be competent to deal with any issue relating to the enforcement of such decisions, including but not limited to the potential recognition of the sporting successor' — as an intentional legislative choice to grant the FIFA administration (not only the Disciplinary Committee) enforcement powers, contrasting it with Articles 21(8) and (9) which explicitly name the Disciplinary Committee. On sporting succession, he identified 'time' as the key factor: Karpaty was formed precisely as CPF was experiencing financial difficulties, immediately adopted CPF's name, logo (under licence from the Ultras), colours, stadium and sporting history, and publicly proclaimed itself CPF's revival. He rejected the argument that sporting succession is a numbers game, emphasising that some criteria carry more weight than others. He agreed with the majority in CAS 2023/A/9809 that FKH's acquisition of individual assets (13 players, a River Plate debt claim, youth academy) reflected only an incomplete attempt by CPF's owner to merge with FKH, whereas the overall sporting identity of CPF was assumed by Karpaty. He also rejected the joinder argument, finding any first-instance procedural defect cured by the de novo CAS appeal in which FKH participated as a respondent.

Why Karpaty matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award clarifies that the FIFA administration — not only the Disciplinary Committee — holds enforcement competence under Article 21(7) FDC to assess sporting succession, resolving a regulatory ambiguity created by the 2023 FDC revision. It also establishes 'time' as a weighty, under-discussed factor in sporting succession analysis and confirms that a sporting successor can be identified even while the original debtor club remains legally in existence, consistent with the express wording of Article 21(4) FDC.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2023/A/9809 Karpaty FC v. FIFA & Cristobal Marquez Crespo & FC Karpaty Halych CAS 2022/A/9288 FC Metalist LLC v. David Caiado Dias CAS 2020/A/7092 CAS 2020/A/7183 CAS 2020/A/6873 CAS 2020/A/6778, 6779, 6827, 6828, 6829, 6936, 6937, 6967 & 7146

Frequently asked questions about Karpaty

Why was Karpaty FC LLC held to be the sporting successor of CPF Karpaty LTD even though they are separate legal entities with different shareholders?

The Sole Arbitrator held that sporting succession transcends legal entities and is determined by whether a new club has assumed the sporting identity of the old one. Karpaty adopted CPF's name 'FC Karpaty Lviv', its exact logo under licence from the Ultras fan group, the same green and white colours, the same stadium, and publicly proclaimed itself the revival of CPF's legacy — all within a short timeframe as CPF declined. The absence of common shareholders or officers was insufficient to negate these strong indicators of sporting continuity.

Was the FIFA administration competent to issue the sporting succession determination, or should it have gone to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee?

The Sole Arbitrator held that the FIFA administration was competent, relying on Article 21(7) of the 2023 FIFA Disciplinary Code, which states 'FIFA will be competent to deal with any issue relating to the enforcement of such decisions, including but not limited to the potential recognition of the sporting successor.' He found this was an intentional legislative choice: where the FDC intended to restrict competence to the Disciplinary Committee alone, it did so explicitly (as in Articles 21(8) and (9)), whereas Article 21(7) uses the broader term 'FIFA.'

Did Karpaty need to appeal to the FIFA Appeal Committee before going to CAS?

No. The Sole Arbitrator found the appeal directly to CAS admissible on two grounds: first, the Appealed Decision was issued by the FIFA administration, not the Disciplinary Committee, so the FIFA Appeal Committee's jurisdiction was never triggered; second, even if the decision were treated as one under the FDC, Article 61(1)(e) of the FDC expressly excludes decisions passed in compliance with Article 21 from the Appeal Committee's jurisdiction.

Why did the Sole Arbitrator reject the argument that FC Karpaty Halych was the true sporting successor of CPF rather than Karpaty FC LLC?

The Sole Arbitrator agreed with the majority in CAS 2023/A/9809 that while CPF's owner Mr Smaliychuk may have attempted to merge CPF with FKH — transferring 13 players, a River Plate debt claim and the youth academy — that attempt remained incomplete. Crucially, FKH never sought to appropriate CPF's sporting history or present itself as CPF's successor, whereas Karpaty actively embraced CPF's name, logo, colours, stadium and history from its inception. The transfer of individual assets to FKH was only one pointer and could not prevail over the overall picture.

Topics: Training compensation & solidarity 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.