CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2023/A/10114 & CAS 2023/A/10117 & CAS 2023/A/10118 & CAS 2023/A/10119 & CAS 2023/A/10121 & CAS 2023/A/10122 — Poalei Tel Aviv Holdings Ltd. v. FIFA

"Poalei Tel Aviv / Hapoel Tel Aviv" · CAS upheld FIFA's disciplinary sanctions against Poalei Tel Aviv for non-payment of predecessor club Hapoel Tel Aviv FC's debts on grounds of sporting continuity.

Award date	Not expressly stated as a single date in the award text (award finalised after 30 April 2025 suspension deadline)
Panel	President: Mr Stephen Sampson (Solicitor, London, UK); Arbitrators: Mr Petros C. Mavroidis (Professor, Columbia, USA) and Mr José J. Pintó (Attorney-at-Law, Barcelona, Spain)
Outcome	All six appeals dismissed; the six FIFA DC decisions of 31 July 2023 confirmed; Poalei Tel Aviv held liable for the debts of Hapoel Tel Aviv FC incurred under Harel Holdings, including payment obligations to FC Bate Borisov (EUR 100,000 + 18% p.a. interest from 28 December 2016), Liviu Ion Antal (EUR 71,000 + EUR 250,000 + 5% p.a. interest), Damir Šovšić (EUR 37,590 + 5% p.a. interest from 4 January 2017), Loukas Vyntra (EUR 151,669 + ILS 50,000 + EUR 237,500 + 5% p.a. interest from 27 December 2016), FC Thun (EUR 50,000 + 5% p.a. interest + CHF 2,000 costs), and Al-Hilal Saudi FC (CHF 16,192 net of set-off), with fines of CHF 1,000–15,000 per case and registration bans upon persistent default.
Provisions	Art. 21 FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC) 2023 edition — non-compliance with financial decisions Art. 59 FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC) 2023 edition — closure of proceedings (formerly Art. 107 FDC) Art. 10(3) FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC) — limitation period and interruption Art. 4 FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC) 2023 edition — temporal application / lex mitior Art. 3 FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC) — jurisdiction Art. 57(1) FIFA Statutes — CAS jurisdiction over FIFA decisions Art. 56(2) FIFA Statutes — applicable law Art. R47 CAS Code — appeal jurisdiction Art. R48 CAS Code — statement of appeal requirements Art. R49 CAS Code — time limit for appeal Art. R50 CAS Code — consolidation / same panel Art. R56 CAS Code — exceptional circumstances for new submissions Art. R58 CAS Code — applicable law Art. 186(1bis) Swiss Private International Law Act (PILA) — lis pendens / stay Art. 176(1) Swiss Private International Law Act (PILA) — international arbitration scope s25 Israeli Contract Law (General Part) 1973 — contract interpretation s34A Israeli Sales Law — sale by judicial authority free of liens Chapter 267 Israeli Companies Law — liquidation proceedings

What happened in Poalei Tel Aviv / Hapoel Tel Aviv

Poalei Tel Aviv Holdings Ltd. (the 'Nissanov Group') acquired the activities of Hapoel Tel Aviv FC in January 2017 through Israeli insolvency proceedings following the liquidation of the prior owner, Harel Holdings – Hapoel Tel Aviv Football Club Ltd. Six separate FIFA Disciplinary Committee decisions of 31 July 2023 found Poalei Tel Aviv responsible for failing to comply with five earlier FIFA PSC/DRC decisions and one CAS award, all of financial nature, ordering payment to creditors including FC Bate Borisov (EUR 100,000), Liviu Ion Antal (EUR 71,000 + EUR 250,000), Damir Šovšić (EUR 37,590), Loukas Vyntra (EUR 151,669 + ILS 50,000 + EUR 237,500), FC Thun (EUR 50,000), and Al-Hilal Saudi FC (CHF 16,192). Poalei Tel Aviv appealed all six decisions to CAS, arguing it was not liable for Harel Holdings' debts, that Israeli insolvency law precluded FIFA jurisdiction, and that proceedings should be closed or stayed. A prior CAS award (CAS 2020/A/6778, 7 November 2022) had annulled earlier FIFA DC decisions for targeting the wrong entity and remitted the cases de novo against Poalei Tel Aviv. The present Panel dismissed all appeals, confirming sporting continuity, rejecting lis pendens and limitation defences, and upholding the disciplinary sanctions. The case matters because it affirms that sporting continuity — not merely sporting succession — can ground liability for predecessor debts even after a court-supervised insolvency sale, and that FIFA disciplinary proceedings need not be closed merely because national insolvency proceedings are ongoing against a different entity.

Procedural history of CAS 2023/A/10114

Between 2016 and 2019, FIFA's PSC and DRC issued financial decisions against 'Hapoel Tel Aviv FC' in favour of FC Bate Borisov, Liviu Ion Antal, Damir Šovšić, Loukas Vyntra, FC Thun, and Al-Hilal Saudi FC. The FIFA DC opened disciplinary proceedings for non-compliance and issued sanctions. Those decisions were appealed; on 7 November 2022, CAS (CAS 2020/A/6778 et al.) annulled the FIFA DC decisions on the ground that FIFA had targeted the wrong legal entity — the club without legal personality rather than its owner — and remitted all cases de novo against Poalei Tel Aviv. On 17 February 2023, the FIFA DC Secretariat reopened proceedings against Poalei Tel Aviv. On 31 July 2023, the Deputy Chairperson of the FIFA DC issued six new decisions (FDD-12648, 12650, 12651, 12652, 12654, 13657) finding Poalei Tel Aviv responsible for the debts and imposing fines ranging from CHF 1,000 to CHF 15,000 per case, plus registration bans upon persistent default. Grounds were notified on 20 October 2023. On 7 November 2023, Poalei Tel Aviv filed six Statements of Appeal before CAS under Article R48 of the CAS Code, giving rise to the present proceedings.

Key holdings in CAS 2023/A/10114

Article 59 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code does not require automatic closure of disciplinary proceedings merely because a related entity is undergoing national insolvency proceedings; closure is discretionary and subject to a balancing of interests on a case-by-case basis.
Where a football club never ceases to exist and maintains its activity without interruption despite a change of corporate ownership through insolvency proceedings, the situation constitutes 'sporting continuity' rather than 'sporting succession', and the new operating entity is liable for the club's pre-existing financial obligations under Article 21 of the FDC.
The limitation period for prosecuting disciplinary violations under Article 10(3) of the FDC is interrupted by all procedural acts and starts afresh with each interruption; the fact that prior FIFA DC decisions were declared null and void and proceedings restarted de novo does not render the new proceedings time-barred.
The lis alibi pendens principle does not apply to stay CAS proceedings where the parallel state insolvency proceedings involve a different party (Harel Holdings) and a different subject matter from the FIFA disciplinary proceedings directed against Poalei Tel Aviv.
Israeli insolvency law is not the applicable law to FIFA disciplinary proceedings but may be taken into account where matters subject to mandatory bankruptcy law or the jurisdiction of the insolvency judge are strictly at issue; FIFA regulations and subsidiarily Swiss law govern the disciplinary proceedings.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Panel applied FIFA regulations as the primary applicable law, with Swiss law subsidiarily, following Article R58 of the CAS Code and Article 56(2) of the FIFA Statutes, while acknowledging that Israeli law could be considered for matters strictly within the scope of the insolvency proceedings. On jurisdiction and closure, the Panel adopted the discretionary balancing approach confirmed in CAS 2015/A/4162 and CAS 2013/A/3321, finding no justification to close proceedings because Poalei Tel Aviv — unlike Harel Holdings — was not itself insolvent and could freely dispose of its assets. On sporting continuity, the Panel applied the test from CAS 2021/A/8060 & 8061: if the club never ceased to exist, the situation is one of continuity, not succession. It found nine undisputed elements confirming uninterrupted identity: same federative licence, competition level, name, history and trophies, colours and logo, headquarters, stadium, internet domain, and FIFA TMS ID number. The Panel rejected the argument that the insolvency sale extinguished liability, noting that the Nissanov Group was aware of and willing to contend with approximately NIS 30 million in foreign claims. It dismissed the lis pendens defence for lack of party identity, the limitation defence because procedural acts interrupted and restarted the period, the double jeopardy argument because IFA's points deduction and FIFA's disciplinary sanction arise from distinct regulatory frameworks, and the creditors' diligence argument as irrelevant in a sporting continuity scenario. The Panel also distinguished the facts from CAS 2021/A/8060 & 8061, where sporting rights reverted to a parent association before being re-granted, which did not occur here.

Why Poalei Tel Aviv / Hapoel Tel Aviv matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award consolidates and extends CAS jurisprudence on sporting continuity by confirming that a court-supervised insolvency sale of a football club's activities does not extinguish the acquiring entity's liability for the club's pre-existing FIFA/CAS financial obligations, provided the club never ceased to exist. It also clarifies that Article 59 FDC closure is discretionary, not automatic, and that national insolvency proceedings against a predecessor entity do not trigger lis pendens or compel a stay of FIFA disciplinary proceedings against the successor operator.

Decision: All six appeals dismissed; the six FIFA DC decisions of 31 July 2023 confirmed; Poalei Tel Aviv held liable for the debts of Hapoel Tel Aviv FC incurred under Harel Holdings, including payment obligations to FC Bate Borisov (EUR 100,000 + 18% p.a. interest from 28 December 2016), Liviu Ion Antal (EUR 71,000 + EUR 250,000 + 5% p.a. interest), Damir Šovšić (EUR 37,590 + 5% p.a. interest from 4 January 2017), Loukas Vyntra (EUR 151,669 + ILS 50,000 + EUR 237,500 + 5% p.a. interest from 27 December 2016), FC Thun (EUR 50,000 + 5% p.a. interest + CHF 2,000 costs), and Al-Hilal Saudi FC (CHF 16,192 net of set-off), with fines of CHF 1,000–15,000 per case and registration bans upon persistent default.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2020/A/6778 (and related: 6779, 6827, 6828, 6829, 6936, 6937, 6967, 7146), Hapoel Tel Aviv FC v. FIFA, award of 7 November 2022 CAS 2021/A/8060 & 8061 CAS 2015/A/4162 CAS 2013/A/3321 CAS 2017/A/5054 CAS 2012/A/2759

Frequently asked questions about Poalei Tel Aviv / Hapoel Tel Aviv

Did Poalei Tel Aviv / Hapoel Tel Aviv win their CAS appeal against FIFA's disciplinary sanctions?

No. CAS dismissed all six appeals and confirmed the FIFA Disciplinary Committee's decisions of 31 July 2023. The Panel found that Poalei Tel Aviv was liable for Hapoel Tel Aviv FC's pre-existing debts on the basis of sporting continuity, as the club never ceased to exist despite the change of ownership through Israeli insolvency proceedings in January 2017.

Does Israeli insolvency law protect the new owner of Hapoel Tel Aviv FC from paying the club's old FIFA debts?

The Panel held that Israeli insolvency law is not the applicable law to FIFA disciplinary proceedings, though it may be considered for matters strictly within the insolvency judge's jurisdiction. Because Poalei Tel Aviv — not Harel Holdings — was the respondent in the disciplinary proceedings and was not itself insolvent, the insolvency of the predecessor entity did not shield Poalei Tel Aviv from liability under Article 21 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code.

What is the difference between 'sporting continuity' and 'sporting succession' in the Hapoel Tel Aviv CAS case?

The Panel, following CAS 2021/A/8060 & 8061, explained that sporting succession applies when a club ceases to exist and a new entity takes over its sporting identity, whereas sporting continuity applies when the club itself never ceases to exist despite a change of corporate ownership. Because Hapoel Tel Aviv FC maintained the same licence, name, colours, logo, stadium, headquarters, internet domain, FIFA TMS ID, and competition level without interruption before and after the January 2017 ownership change, the Panel classified the situation as sporting continuity, making Poalei Tel Aviv directly liable for the club's pre-existing debts.

Were the FIFA disciplinary proceedings against Hapoel Tel Aviv / Poalei Tel Aviv time-barred?

No. The Panel held that under Article 10(3) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code the five-year limitation period for prosecuting disciplinary violations is interrupted by all procedural acts and starts afresh with each interruption. The fact that the earlier FIFA DC decisions had been declared null and void by CAS in November 2022 and the proceedings restarted de novo against Poalei Tel Aviv did not render the new proceedings time-barred.

Go deeper than the digest

Ask LexXi how this award has been applied since, compare it with related jurisprudence across 14,200+ indexed FIFA & CAS documents, and get answers with verified citations.

Ask LexXi about Poalei Tel Aviv / Hapoel Tel Aviv — free

Topics: Doping, ethics & governance 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.