CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10438 — Daniels Fedorovics v. Latvian Football Federation

"Fedorovics" · CAS upheld a 12-month ban and EUR 1,000 fine on a Latvian defender found to have deliberately manipulated a domestic league match.

What happened in Fedorovics

On 7 October 2023, FK Dinamo Riga lost 3-4 to FK Tukums 2000/TSS 2 after leading 3-0 at half-time. UEFA's Betting Fraud Detection System and Starlizard both flagged overwhelming betting irregularities, with 97% (EUR 35,815) of attempted singles turnover placed on outcomes requiring a draw. Five LFF-appointed experts reviewed video footage and identified numerous actions by defender Daniels Fedorovics in the second half that were inexplicable for a player of his calibre — including a deliberate back-heel pass to an opponent, retreating from a last-defender duel, and stepping aside to allow a back-pass to roll to the goalkeeper. The LFF Ethics Committee sanctioned Fedorovics with a 12-month disqualification and EUR 1,000 fine under LFF Disciplinary Regulations Art. 10.1.3.2. The LFF Appeals Committee confirmed the sanction on 12 February 2024. Fedorovics appealed to CAS, seeking acquittal, annulment of sanctions, and EUR 50,000 in damages. The Sole Arbitrator dismissed the appeal in full, finding the match was fixed and that Fedorovics's repeated, extremely reckless on-pitch conduct established his involvement to comfortable satisfaction. Any procedural defects from the LFF proceedings were cured by the de novo CAS hearing. The case illustrates how video-based expert analysis combined with betting-market data can jointly satisfy the comfortable-satisfaction standard in match-manipulation proceedings.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10438

On 19 December 2023, the LFF Ethics Committee (decision no. 4/2023) found the 7 October 2023 match manipulated and sanctioned Fedorovics with a 12-month disqualification and EUR 1,000 fine under LFF Disciplinary Regulations Annex No. 1, points 10.1.3.2 and 15. On 6 January 2024, Fedorovics appealed to the LFF Appeals Committee, which on 12 February 2024 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the sanctions in full, relying on five expert opinions, the UEFA BFDS Report, the Starlizard Report, and a United Lotteries integrity alert. On 4 March 2024, Fedorovics filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS under Articles R47 and R48 of the CAS Code, within the 21-day limit of Article R49. A request for stay of the Appealed Decision was dismissed by the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division on 5 July 2024. A joint videoconference hearing with related procedure CAS 2024/A/10456 was held on 5 September 2024. CAS was asked to set aside the sanctions, acquit the player, and award EUR 50,000 in damages.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10438

• The Match of 7 October 2023 between FK Dinamo Riga and FK Tukums 2000/TSS 2 was manipulated, established to the comfortable satisfaction of the Sole Arbitrator on the basis of the BFDS Report, Starlizard Report, and five expert opinions.
• Fedorovics's repeated and extremely reckless on-pitch conduct in the second half — including an unexplained back-heel pass to an opponent and retreating as last defender — established his individual involvement in the match-fixing scheme to comfortable satisfaction.
• Procedural defects allegedly committed in the LFF disciplinary proceedings were cured by the full de novo review conducted by CAS under Article R57 of the CAS Code.
• The five LFF-appointed experts were not shown to lack independence, impartiality, or sufficient skills, and the issuance of separate opinions did not violate LFF regulations.
• Because the appeal against the sanctions was dismissed, the claim for EUR 50,000 in damages was rendered unnecessary to examine on admissibility or merits.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator applied a two-step framework drawn from CAS jurisprudence: first establishing that the match was manipulated, then determining the individual player's involvement. On step one, he relied on the BFDS Report's finding of 'clear and overwhelming betting evidence', Starlizard's pricing irregularities, and expert opinions noting a dramatic and inexplicable performance collapse by Dinamo Riga players in the second half. On step two, he personally reviewed the match video footage and identified four specific actions by Fedorovics — at minutes 65:36, 80:17, 86:45, and 88:51 — that were 'patently inconsistent with a normal or even poor performance' by a player of his calibre (40 Optibet Super League games, youth international experience). This assessment was corroborated by Expert No. 1 (10 passive/reckless actions), Expert No. 2 (7 level-inappropriate actions), Expert No. 3 (more than 15 specific actions, concluding deliberate damage to team interests), and the BFDS Report's identification of Fedorovics's half-hearted block for the 3:3 goal. The Sole Arbitrator rejected the 'lack of motivation' explanation offered by the player and his witnesses as insufficient to account for the conduct observed. He also rejected challenges to expert independence and to the format of separate opinions. The sanctions prescribed by LFF Disciplinary Regulations Art. 10.1.3.2 were confirmed without modification.

Why Fedorovics matters in CAS jurisprudence

Fedorovics reinforces the two-step comfortable-satisfaction framework for match-manipulation cases: betting-market evidence alone is insufficient, but when combined with video-based expert analysis identifying specific inexplicable on-pitch actions, it can satisfy the standard. The award also reaffirms that procedural defects in federation proceedings are cured by CAS's de novo review under Article R57, and that separate expert opinions — rather than a single unified commission report — do not per se violate LFF disciplinary regulations.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2008/A/1545 CAS 2009/A/1880 & 1881 CAS 2016/A/4377 CAS 2016/A/4740 CAS 2017/A/5338 CAS 2018/A/6075

Frequently asked questions about Fedorovics

What standard of proof did CAS apply in the Fedorovics match-fixing case?

The Sole Arbitrator applied the 'comfortable satisfaction' standard established in CAS jurisprudence, citing CAS 2017/A/5338, CAS 2018/A/6075, and CAS 2022/A/9055 & 9076. He required both that the match was manipulated and that Fedorovics was individually involved to be established to that standard. The abundant video evidence and expert opinions, combined with the BFDS Report, satisfied that threshold.

Can betting reports alone prove a player's guilt in a CAS match-fixing appeal?

No. The LFF Appeals Committee itself acknowledged, citing CAS 2021/A/8453 para. 96, that a BFDS report alone cannot prove a link between a player and deliberate match manipulation. In Fedorovics, the Sole Arbitrator reached comfortable satisfaction only by combining the BFDS and Starlizard reports with five expert video analyses identifying more than 30 specific inexplicable actions by the player in the second half of the match.

Were the procedural violations alleged by Fedorovics before the LFF bodies enough to annul the sanction at CAS?

No. The Sole Arbitrator held that any procedural defects in the LFF Ethics Committee and Appeals Committee proceedings were cured by the full de novo hearing at CAS under Article R57 of the CAS Code. Fedorovics had the opportunity to file written submissions, produce evidence, call witnesses (Messrs. Sackovs and Talbergs), request document production, and make oral arguments at the 5 September 2024 videoconference hearing.

What specific on-pitch actions led CAS to find Fedorovics personally involved in match-fixing?

The Sole Arbitrator personally reviewed the match video and highlighted four key actions: at minute 65:36 Fedorovics executed an unexplained back-heel pass delivering the ball to an opponent; at minute 80:17 he inexplicably retreated as last defender allowing an uncontested shot; at minute 86:45 he stepped aside with no reasonable explanation allowing a back-pass to roll to the goalkeeper, leading to a goal; and at minute 88:51 he refrained from any action as the sole defender capable of preventing a shot. These were corroborated by Expert No. 1 (10 passive/reckless actions), Expert No. 2 (7 level-inappropriate actions), and Expert No. 3 (more than 15 specific actions).

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.