CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2023/A/9669 — West Ham United Football Club v. PFC CSKA & FIFA

"West Ham v. CSKA" · CAS suspended West Ham's obligation to pay a EUR 8,550,266.77 transfer instalment until UK/US sanctions regimes permit payment to CSKA.

What happened in West Ham v. CSKA

West Ham United (WHU) agreed in August 2021 to pay CSKA EUR 25,650,800.31 for player Nikola Vlašić in three instalments. The first instalment was paid; the second (EUR 8,550,266.77, due 31 July 2022) fell due after the UK and US governments imposed sanctions in February 2022 following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. CSKA, its then-owner VEB, and its designated bank Sovcombank were all listed as Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs) by OFAC; VEB and Sovcombank were also designated by OFSI. WHU's bank Barclays refused to process any payment to or for the benefit of CSKA. CSKA filed before the FIFA Players' Status Chamber, which on 31 March 2023 ordered WHU to pay the full second instalment plus 5% interest from 1 August 2022 and threatened a registration ban. WHU appealed to CAS. The panel majority held that: (1) WHU was genuinely prevented from paying by the sanctions regimes; (2) a monetary obligation can never be extinguished under Article 119 SCO ('genera non pereunt'), so the debt survives; but (3) the obligation is temporarily suspended until an OFSI licence is obtained or the UK sanctions regime ends or is amended. Interest runs only from that future 'Due Date'. The registration-ban sanction was correspondingly re-timed to 45 days after the Due Date. The appeal was partially upheld.

Procedural history of CAS 2023/A/9669

On 21 December 2022, CSKA lodged a claim before the FIFA Players' Status Chamber (FIFA PSC, ref. FPSD-8647) seeking EUR 8,550,266.77 plus 5% interest p.a. from 1 August 2022 and a registration ban under Article 12bis FIFA RSTP. On 31 March 2023, the FIFA PSC accepted the claim in full, ordering payment within 45 days on pain of a ban from registering new players for up to three consecutive registration periods. Grounds were notified on 27 April 2023. WHU filed its Statement of Appeal at CAS on 17 May 2023, within the 21-day limit under Article R49 of the CAS Code and Article 57(1) of the FIFA Statutes. The proceedings were suspended twice at the parties' request while settlement talks continued. CSKA lifted the suspension on 26 April 2024. A hearing was held in Lausanne on 26 September 2024. Post-hearing submissions were exchanged through early 2025, including OFSI's 29 July 2024 letter and its 6 March 2025 denial of the Sovcombank licence. CAS was asked to annul the Appealed Decision and either extinguish the debt, suspend the payment obligation, or order payment into a FIFA-overseen escrow account.

Key holdings in CAS 2023/A/9669

• A monetary obligation governed by Swiss law can never be extinguished through impossibility of performance under Article 119 SCO because, under the rule 'genera non pereunt' and Article 84(1) SCO, a pecuniary debt can always be discharged at some point in time.
• The UK and US sanctions regimes constituted a legal impossibility ('loi de police') that temporarily prevented WHU from fulfilling its payment obligation to CSKA, meaning WHU was not in default during the period of that impossibility.
• Where a payment obligation is temporarily impossible due to an embargo or equivalent legal regime, the obligation is suspended rather than extinguished, following SFT jurisprudence ATF 44 II 519 (1918).
• Alternative payment routes proposed by CSKA (via shareholder AVO Capital or third-party club SC Heerenveen) were not legally available because Barclays refused to process them under its sanctions policy, and such routes would have amounted to circumvention of the applicable sanctions regimes.
• The disciplinary registration-ban sanction under Article 24 FIFA RSTP must be re-timed so that the 45-day compliance period runs from the 'Due Date' (i.e., when an OFSI licence is obtained or the UK sanctions regime ends or is amended), not from notification of the original FIFA PSC decision.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The panel majority first confirmed jurisdiction and admissibility, then addressed five sub-issues. On the threshold question of whether WHU was prevented from paying, the majority found that CSKA was an SDN under OFAC and that Sovcombank (the contractually designated bank) was sanctioned under both OFAC and OFSI; Barclays therefore refused all payment routes. The majority rejected the argument that restrictions applied only to Barclays and not to WHU, holding that the restrictions applied to CSKA as the SDN and that WHU could not freely transfer money to CSKA or any entity for CSKA's benefit. The majority also rejected comparisons with payments made under EU or Swiss sanctions regimes as irrelevant to the UK regime at issue. On extinction, the panel unanimously agreed with CSKA that a monetary debt cannot be extinguished under Article 119 SCO ('genera non pereunt'), citing SFT decision 4A_474/2009. However, the majority applied SFT ATF 44 II 519 (1918) to hold that a temporary legal impossibility suspends rather than extinguishes the obligation, characterising the UK sanctions as a 'loi de police' removing compliance from the debtor's control. Consequently, interest was re-set to run only from the Due Date. The escrow-account alternative was dismissed because FIFA confirmed it lacked the means to create or oversee such an account. The request to extinguish the debt entirely was ruled outside the panel's de novo scope as it had not been raised before the FIFA PSC.

Why West Ham v. CSKA matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award is the first CAS decision to apply the Swiss Federal Tribunal's 1918 'temporary impossibility' doctrine (ATF 44 II 519) to a modern international sanctions regime in a football transfer dispute. It establishes that UK/US sanctions can constitute a 'loi de police' suspending — but never extinguishing — a monetary payment obligation under Swiss law, and that a debtor club is not in default during the period of that legal impossibility. The award also clarifies that alternative payment routes proposed by a sanctioned creditor do not discharge the debtor's burden where those routes would themselves circumvent the applicable sanctions regime.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2022/A/8708 (RFS v. FIFA) CAS 2021/A/7673 & 7699 CAS 2018/A/5337 CAS 2017/A/5496 CAS 2013/A/3471 CAS 2023/A/9870

Frequently asked questions about West Ham v. CSKA

Did West Ham win the CAS appeal against CSKA over the Vlašić transfer fee?

Partially. CAS partially upheld West Ham's appeal, annulling points 2, 4 and 5 of the FIFA PSC decision. The panel found that UK and US sanctions temporarily prevented WHU from paying the EUR 8,550,266.77 second instalment, so the payment obligation was suspended rather than enforced immediately. However, the debt was not extinguished — WHU must still pay once an OFSI licence is obtained or the UK sanctions regime ends or is amended.

Can a football club avoid paying a transfer instalment because of sanctions — does force majeure extinguish the debt?

No, according to this award. The CAS panel held that a monetary obligation can never be extinguished through impossibility of performance under Article 119 SCO because of the Swiss law rule 'genera non pereunt' (confirmed by SFT decision 4A_474/2009). At most, the obligation is temporarily suspended under SFT ATF 44 II 519 (1918) until the legal impediment is lifted. West Ham's debt of EUR 8,550,266.77 therefore survives; only the due date and interest start-date were deferred.

Why did CAS reject CSKA's alternative payment proposals (AVO Capital, SC Heerenveen) as a solution for West Ham?

The panel majority found that Barclays refused to process any payment to or for the benefit of CSKA — including to shareholder AVO Capital or to SC Heerenveen — because CSKA was a Specially Designated National under OFAC and Sovcombank (the contractually designated bank) was sanctioned under both OFAC and OFSI. The majority also held that routing money through third parties without a licence would amount to circumvention of the applicable sanctions regimes, and that it was CSKA — as the sanctioned party — that failed to prove the existence of legally available alternative routes.

When does West Ham have to pay the second Vlašić instalment and does interest run from August 2022?

Under the CAS award, the 'Due Date' is triggered when WHU obtains a licence from OFSI or when the UK sanctions regime ends or is amended in terms that enable payment to CSKA. Interest at 5% per annum runs only from that Due Date until effective payment — not from 1 August 2022 as the FIFA PSC had ordered. The registration-ban sanction also runs from 45 days after the Due Date, not from notification of the original FIFA PSC decision.

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.