CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

TAS 2024/A/10916 — ACB 1904 SA v. Swiss Football League

"ACB Bellinzona" · CAS upheld a forfeit loss imposed on Bellinzona for listing eight non-locally-trained players on the match card, one over the permitted maximum.

What happened in ACB Bellinzona

AC Bellinzona 1904 SA (ACB) played FC Wil 1900 on 20 July 2024 in the Swiss Challenge League, winning 2:1 on the field. The Swiss Football League (SFL) disciplinary process found that ACB had listed eight 'non-locally-trained' players on the official match card, one more than the maximum of seven permitted by Art. 170(1) of the ASF Playing Regulations and Art. 17(2) of the SFL Competition Regulations. The SFL Disciplinary Commission President imposed a 0:3 forfeit loss, a three-point deduction, a CHF 100 fine, and CHF 2,500 in procedural costs. The SFL Appeals Tribunal confirmed that decision on 16 September 2024. ACB appealed to CAS, arguing: (i) two players (Nivokazi and Nkama) qualified as locally trained because they had completed three full seasons with an ASF-affiliated club regardless of age; and (ii) the inclusion of Lucas Peres Ferreira De Campos was an innocent clerical error because he had already been contractually transferred to Rampla Juniors FC. The Sole Arbitrator rejected both arguments, confirmed the forfeit and fine, and dismissed the appeal in full. The case matters because it clarifies the mandatory age-bracket requirement for 'locally trained' status under Swiss football rules and confirms that a contractual transfer agreement does not end a player's formal qualification for a club until the clubcorner.ch deregistration procedure is completed.

Procedural history of TAS 2024/A/10916

On 12 August 2024 the President of the SFL Disciplinary Commission sanctioned ACB with a 0:3 forfeit loss, a three-point deduction, a CHF 100 fine, and CHF 2,500 in procedural costs for listing eight non-locally-trained players on the match card for the 20 July 2024 Challenge League fixture against FC Wil 1900. ACB appealed to the SFL Appeals Tribunal, which held a hearing and on 16 September 2024 confirmed the decision in full, finding a clear violation of Arts. 168 and 170(1) of the ASF Playing Regulations and Art. 17(2) of the SFL Competition Regulations. ACB then filed a CAS appeal on 24 September 2024 under Arts. R47 et seq. of the 2023 CAS Code, requesting annulment of both the forfeit result and the fine. A preliminary request for a stay was rejected by the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division on 22 October 2024. A hearing took place in Lugano on 17 February 2025 before Sole Arbitrator Michele A.R. Bernasconi.

Key holdings in TAS 2024/A/10916

• Under Art. 168(1) of the ASF Playing Regulations, the age bracket of 15 to 21 years applies to both alternative conditions for 'locally trained' status (three full seasons or 36 months), so registration outside that age window does not qualify a player as locally trained.
• A contractual transfer agreement with a foreign club does not terminate a player's formal qualification for an SFL club; qualification ends only upon deregistration on www.clubcorner.ch or qualification for another club pursuant to Art. 15(2) of the SFL Player Qualification Regulations.
• Listing a player on the official match card is sufficient to count that player toward the non-locally-trained quota, even if the player does not actually take the field, in accordance with CAS 2006/A/1154.
• Under Art. 6 of the ASF Disciplinary Regulations, disciplinary violations are punishable whether committed intentionally or negligently, so good faith does not exempt a club from the automatic forfeit sanction under Art. 176(1) of the ASF Playing Regulations.
• The SFL has no obligation under its statutes or regulations to publish its rules in Italian, as Swiss association law grants private associations autonomy to choose the languages of their regulations, and Art. 12 of the SFL Procedural Regulations governs only the language of proceedings, not the language of the rules themselves.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator applied the Swiss Federal Tribunal's methodological pluralism in statutory interpretation (DTF 145 III 63; DTF 141 III 195; DTF 131 III 314), examining the grammatical, teleological, systematic, and historical elements of Art. 168(1) ASF. He found the text unambiguous in both German and French: the conjunctions 'entweder/oder' (German) and 'ou' (French) link both conditions (three seasons and 36 months) to the same age bracket of 15–21 years. ACB's reading — that the age bracket modifies only the 36-month limb — was rejected as contra legem and inconsistent with the rule's purpose of incentivising youth development in Swiss football. On the De Campos issue, the Arbitrator applied Art. 15(2) of the SFL Player Qualification Regulations and followed CAS 2006/A/1154, holding that listing a player on the card is sufficient for counting purposes regardless of actual deployment. The FIFA TMS showed the transfer instruction was given only on 31 July 2024, ten days after the match. On sanctions, Art. 176(1) ASF prescribes an automatic 0:3 forfeit with no discretion, and Art. 6 ASF Disciplinary Regulations makes negligence sufficient, so good faith was irrelevant. The Arbitrator also noted that under Art. 7(2) of the SFL Statutes, the German text prevails in case of conflict between language versions.

Why ACB Bellinzona matters in CAS jurisprudence

The award provides authoritative CAS guidance on the interpretation of the Swiss 'locally trained' player rule, confirming that the age bracket of 15–21 years is a mandatory element of both qualifying conditions and cannot be read away by grammatical parsing of the French text. It also reinforces that a contractual transfer agreement has no effect on a player's associative qualification status until the formal deregistration procedure is completed, and that the automatic forfeit sanction under Art. 176(1) ASF applies regardless of good faith or negligence.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2006/A/1154, FC Locarno v. SFL CAS 2022/A/8731, Shanghai Shenhua FC v. FIFA CAS 2022/A/8708, FUR v. FIFA et al. DTF 145 III 63 DTF 141 III 195 DTF 131 III 314

Frequently asked questions about ACB Bellinzona

Why did Bellinzona lose the ACB v SFL case at CAS even though the transfer of De Campos had already been agreed before the match?

The Sole Arbitrator held that under Art. 15(2) of the SFL Player Qualification Regulations, a player's qualification for a club ends only when the club announces his departure on www.clubcorner.ch or when he qualifies for another club. The contractual agreement with Rampla Juniors FC, signed on 17 July 2024, was a purely obligatory arrangement between private parties and had no effect on De Campos's associative status. The FIFA TMS showed the transfer instruction was not given until 31 July 2024, ten days after the match.

Does the 'locally trained' rule under Art. 168 ASF require the three-season period to fall between ages 15 and 21?

Yes. The CAS Sole Arbitrator confirmed that the age bracket of 15 to 21 years applies to both alternative conditions in Art. 168(1) — the three full seasons and the 36-month period. He found the German text (using 'entweder/oder') and the French text (using 'ou') both unambiguous on this point, and held that ACB's contrary reading was contra legem. Players Nivokazi and Nkama therefore did not qualify as locally trained because their registration with ASF-affiliated clubs did not fall within that age window.

Can a Swiss Challenge League club avoid the forfeit sanction under Art. 176 ASF by arguing good faith or clerical error when listing too many non-locally-trained players?

No. Art. 176(1) of the ASF Playing Regulations prescribes an automatic 0:3 forfeit with no margin of discretion, and Art. 6 of the ASF Disciplinary Regulations expressly provides that violations are punishable whether committed intentionally or negligently. The Sole Arbitrator acknowledged ACB's good faith but held that the legislator had deliberately chosen an automatic, predetermined sanction, leaving no room for equitable adjustment.

Is the SFL or ASF required to publish its regulations in Italian given that Italian is an official language in Switzerland?

According to this CAS award, no. The Sole Arbitrator held that Swiss association law grants private associations autonomy to choose the languages of their regulations, and neither the ASF nor the SFL violates its own statutes or rules by not publishing an Italian version. Art. 12 of the SFL Procedural Regulations, which lists Italian as an official language, governs only the language of proceedings before SFL judicial bodies, not the language in which the substantive regulations must be drafted.

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.