CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2023/A/10510 — Dayron Alexander Mosquera Mendoza v. Speranis Nisporeni & FIFA

"Mosquera v. Speranis Nisporeni" · CAS rejected a player's claim that a Moldovan club was the sporting successor of his former employer, upholding the FIFA DC decision.

What happened in Mosquera v. Speranis Nisporeni

Colombian footballer Dayron Alexander Mosquera Mendoza signed an employment contract on 18 February 2019 with CSF Speranta Nisporeni (the Original Club). After the club breached the contract, the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber ordered the Original Club to pay him USD 39,000 plus 5% interest p.a. from 21 February 2020. The Original Club was disaffiliated from the Football Association of Moldova in August 2021 without paying. The player then sought to hold Club Speranis Nisporeni (CF Speranis), a separate Moldovan club founded on 20 March 2019 originally as FC Sporting Trestieni, liable as the sporting successor of the Original Club. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee on 7 March 2024 found no sporting succession and closed proceedings. The player appealed to CAS. Sole Arbitrator Juan Pablo Arriagada Aljaro conducted a multi-factor analysis under Article 21(4) FDC and CAS jurisprudence, finding that the two clubs differed in founding year, logos, colours, stadiums, addresses, social media, ownership, management, and competitive history. The limited similarities — similar name, same legal form, three shared players, and one shared official — were insufficient, particularly because the players and official had not transferred directly from the Original Club. The appeal was rejected and the FIFA DC decision confirmed. The case matters as a clear application of the holistic sporting-succession test, illustrating that a handful of superficial similarities cannot overcome a preponderance of distinguishing factors.

Procedural history of CAS 2023/A/10510

On 21 February 2020, the Appellant filed a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber against CSF Speranta Nisporeni for breach of contract without just cause, requesting USD 39,000 plus 5% interest p.a. The DRC ruled in the Appellant's favour and ordered the Original Club to pay those amounts. The Original Club was disaffiliated from the Football Association of Moldova on 11 August 2021 without satisfying the award. On 5 January 2024, the Appellant requested the FIFA Disciplinary Committee to open disciplinary proceedings against Club Speranis Nisporeni as the alleged sporting successor. Proceedings were opened on 22 February 2024. On 7 March 2024, the FIFA DC concluded that the First Respondent was not the sporting successor and closed the proceedings. FIFA notified the grounds of the decision on 25 March 2024. The Appellant filed his Statement of Appeal with CAS on 15 April 2024 and his Appeal Brief on 6 May 2024, within the 21-day deadline under Article 57.1 of the FIFA Statutes. CAS appointed Mr. Juan Pablo Arriagada Aljaro as Sole Arbitrator. A hearing was held by videoconference on 19 November 2024.

Key holdings in CAS 2023/A/10510

• The burden of proving sporting succession rests on the party claiming it, pursuant to Article 41(2) FDC and Article 8 of the Swiss Civil Code.
• The applicable standard of proof for sporting succession is 'comfortable satisfaction', higher than the balance of probabilities but lower than beyond reasonable doubt, per Article 39(3) FDC.
• The factors listed in Article 21(4) FDC for assessing sporting succession are non-exhaustive, and it is the overall package of elements and their respective weight that is decisive.
• Three shared players who were not transferred directly or immediately from the Original Club, and one shared official who joined one year after his contract with the Original Club ended, are insufficient to establish sporting succession.
• Club Speranis Nisporeni is not the sporting successor of CSF Speranta Nisporeni because the limited similarities (name, legal form, three players, one official) are outweighed by the many distinguishing factors including different founding years, logos, colours, stadiums, addresses, ownership, management, and competitive history.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator applied the multi-factor test under Article 21(4) FDC, treating the listed criteria as non-exhaustive and assessing the overall package of similarities and differences. On founding year and competitive path, the clubs differed markedly: the Original Club was founded in 1991 and competed in the top division, while the First Respondent was founded on 20 March 2019 as FC Sporting Trestieni and started in the third tier. Logos and colours were different; the shared eagle motif was explained by its use in Moldovan national symbols. Stadiums, registered addresses, websites, social media, ownership, and management were all distinct. On name similarity, the Arbitrator found it coincidental rather than intentional, noting that another Moldovan club, FC Speranta, also bears a similar name and that the name change occurred one year after the Original Club's disaffiliation. On shared players, CAS jurisprudence requires 'a great number of players'; only three were shared and none transferred directly. The single shared official joined one year after his contract with the Original Club ended. Legal form was irrelevant because all Moldovan clubs are legally required to be non-profit organisations. The Appellant's 'manoeuvre' theory was not substantiated by evidence. The Arbitrator rejected the appeal, confirming the FIFA DC decision.

Why Mosquera v. Speranis Nisporeni matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces the holistic, multi-factor approach to sporting succession under Article 21(4) FDC, demonstrating that superficial similarities such as a near-identical name, shared legal form, and a handful of common players are insufficient when the preponderance of objective indicators — founding year, logos, colours, stadiums, addresses, ownership, management, and competitive history — point in the opposite direction. It also confirms that the 'comfortable satisfaction' standard applies and that the claimant bears the burden of proof.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2020/A/7290 CAS 2020/A/6884 CAS 2020/A/7092 CAS 2018/A/5618 CAS 2013/A/3425 TAS 2011/A/2614

Frequently asked questions about Mosquera v. Speranis Nisporeni

What is the Mosquera v. Speranis Nisporeni case about?

Colombian player Dayron Alexander Mosquera Mendoza held a FIFA DRC award for USD 39,000 plus 5% interest p.a. against CSF Speranta Nisporeni, which was disaffiliated from the Football Association of Moldova in August 2021 without paying. He argued that Club Speranis Nisporeni (CF Speranis), founded on 20 March 2019 originally as FC Sporting Trestieni, was the sporting successor and therefore liable for the debt. CAS rejected the claim on 28 February 2025, finding insufficient evidence of sporting succession.

What factors did CAS examine to decide whether Speranis Nisporeni was the sporting successor of Speranta Nisporeni?

The Sole Arbitrator applied the non-exhaustive list in Article 21(4) FDC — headquarters, name, legal form, team colours, players, ownership/management, and category of competition — plus additional CAS jurisprudence factors including founding year, logos, stadium, social media, and public perception. The clubs differed on nearly all counts: different founding years, logos, colours, stadiums, addresses, owners, managers, and competitive histories. The limited similarities (similar name, same non-profit legal form, three shared players, one shared official) were found insufficient to establish sporting succession.

What standard of proof applies to sporting succession claims at CAS under the FIFA Disciplinary Code?

The Sole Arbitrator held that the applicable standard is 'comfortable satisfaction' pursuant to Article 39(3) FDC, which is higher than the civil standard of balance of probabilities but lower than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof rests on the party asserting sporting succession, per Article 41(2) FDC and Article 8 of the Swiss Civil Code.

Does sharing a few players between two clubs establish sporting succession under CAS jurisprudence?

No. In this case, CAS confirmed that 'a great number of players' is generally necessary to suggest sporting succession, citing CAS 2020/A/7290. Only three players were shared between CSF Speranta Nisporeni and CF Speranis Nisporeni, and crucially none transferred directly or immediately — all had been registered with other clubs in between. The single shared official also did not join the First Respondent until one year after his contract with the Original Club had ended, further undermining the succession argument.

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.