CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/11064 — Marc Biolley & Matchworld Football SA v. Royal Belgian Football Association (RBFA)

"Biolley" · CAS upheld FIFA's order that a licensed match agent pay EUR 275,000 to RBFA for an unpaid match-fee instalment, rejecting nullity, breach, and unjust-enrichment defences.

Award date	17 June 2026
Panel	President: Daan de Jong (Lawyer, Utrecht, Netherlands); Arbitrators: Patrick Lafranchi (Attorney-at-law, Bern, Switzerland) and Patrick Grandjean (Attorney-at-law, Lausanne, Switzerland)
Outcome	Appeal by MWF dismissed for lack of CAS jurisdiction; appeal by Biolley dismissed on the merits; Appealed Decision confirmed; Biolley ordered to pay RBFA EUR 275,000 plus 5% interest per annum from 12 December 2022.
Provisions	Art. 20 Swiss Code of Obligations (CO) — nullity for impossible/unlawful object Art. 23 CO — fundamental error Art. 24 CO — definition of fundamental error Art. 28 CO — fraud Art. 62 CO — unjust enrichment Art. 102 CO — default interest Art. 18(1) CO — contractual interpretation Art. 2 Swiss Civil Code (CC) — good faith Art. 8 CC — burden of proof Art. 182(4) Swiss Private International Law Act (PILA) — waiver of procedural objections Art. 186(2) PILA — jurisdictional objection prior to merits Art. 187(1) PILA — applicable law Art. 22(1) FIFA Match Agents Regulations (2003 ed.) — FIFA PSC jurisdiction over match agents Art. 4 FIFA Match Agents Regulations (2003 ed.) — only natural persons may hold a licence Art. 9 FIFA Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (2023 ed.) — exhaustive list of parties Art. 49(1) FIFA Statutes (2024 ed.) — CAS recognition Art. 49(2) FIFA Statutes (2024 ed.) — applicable law Art. 50(1) FIFA Statutes (2024 ed.) — appeals to CAS within 21 days Art. R47 CAS Code — appeal jurisdiction Art. R48 CAS Code — formal requirements Art. R49 CAS Code — admissibility Art. R51 CAS Code — Appeal Brief Art. R54 CAS Code — constitution of panel Art. R55 CAS Code — Answer Art. R57 CAS Code — scope of review Art. R58 CAS Code — applicable law

What happened in Biolley

This case arose from a match-organisation agreement for a Belgium–Egypt friendly played in Kuwait on 18 November 2022. FIFA-licensed match agent Marc Biolley and his company Matchworld Football SA (MWF) contracted with RBFA to organise the fixture and acquire its commercial and media rights in exchange for a flat fee of EUR 1,100,000 payable in four instalments of EUR 275,000 each. Three instalments totalling EUR 825,000 were paid; the fourth was not. RBFA filed before the FIFA Players' Status Chamber (PSC), which on 15 October 2024 ordered Biolley personally to pay EUR 275,000 plus 5% interest from 12 December 2022. On appeal, Biolley argued: (i) RBFA's FIFA claim was inadmissible under Clause 8 of the contract; (ii) the contract was null and void under Article 20 CO because RBFA had no rights to transfer; (iii) his consent was vitiated by error or fraud; (iv) RBFA breached the contract; and (v) RBFA was unjustly enriched. CAS dismissed all grounds and confirmed the Appealed Decision. Separately, CAS held it lacked jurisdiction over MWF because the FIFA PSC had no jurisdiction over a corporate entity that cannot hold a FIFA match-agent licence. The case matters because it clarifies the derivative nature of CAS appellate jurisdiction, the waiver of threshold admissibility objections, and the limits of nullity and breach defences in match-organisation contracts.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/11064

On 10 July 2023 RBFA filed a claim before the FIFA Players' Status Chamber against both MWF and Biolley, seeking EUR 275,000 plus 5% interest from 12 December 2022 and withdrawal of Biolley's FIFA match-agent licence. On 23 October 2023 Biolley filed a counterclaim estimating losses of EUR 1,058,539. On 15 October 2024 the FIFA PSC rendered the Appealed Decision: it ordered Biolley to pay EUR 275,000 plus 5% interest from 12 December 2022, rejected the licence-withdrawal request as disproportionate, and imposed no obligation on MWF. The grounds were communicated on 19 November 2024. On 9 December 2024 both Biolley and MWF filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS. CAS constituted a three-member panel on 12 March 2025. A hearing was held on 12 January 2026 in Lausanne. CAS was asked to set aside the Appealed Decision, declare the contract null and void or ineffective, order RBFA to refund EUR 825,000 and pay further damages, or alternatively confirm the Appealed Decision.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/11064

CAS has no jurisdiction over MWF's appeal because the FIFA PSC lacked jurisdiction over MWF — a Swiss company categorically ineligible to hold a FIFA match-agent licence — and CAS appellate jurisdiction is derivative and cannot exceed that of the first-instance body.
Biolley waived his right to invoke the Clause 8 admissibility objection by engaging on the merits and filing a counterclaim before the FIFA PSC without ever raising that objection, in violation of the good-faith principle under Article 2 CC and Article 182(4) PILA.
The Match Contract was not null and void under Article 20 CO: the evidence showed a serious practical complication in execution rather than legal impossibility, and the Match was ultimately played between the same teams on the same date and at the same venue as contractually agreed.
RBFA did not breach the Match Contract: the home/away designation was never addressed as a material term during negotiations, the problem that arose was addressed by recharacterising the fixture as 'Egypt v. Belgium', and Biolley failed to prove that RBFA failed to perform a specific contractual obligation.
The unjust-enrichment claim under Article 62 CO fails because the Match Contract remained valid and binding, providing a continuing legal basis for RBFA's retention of the sums received.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Panel addressed five issues in sequence. On the Clause 8 admissibility objection, it applied Article 182(4) PILA and Article 2 CC, finding that Biolley had engaged fully on the merits and filed a counterclaim before FIFA without ever raising the objection, thereby waiving it; Article R57 CAS Code does not operate as a procedural amnesty. On nullity, the Panel noted the preambular 'insofar as possible' qualification, the fact that MWF had actually entered into commercial arrangements with Silver Spring Media and others, and that the Match was played as agreed save for the home/away designation — none of which supported legal impossibility under Article 20 CO. On error and fraud under Articles 23, 24 and 28 CO, the Panel found no sufficiently specific false representation or concealed decisive fact, and weighed Biolley's experience as a licensed match agent against him. On breach, the Panel distinguished between evidence of commercial difficulty and proof of non-performance of a specific contractual obligation: the home/away issue was never contractually addressed by Biolley during months of negotiation, RBFA engaged with the problem once it arose, and causation was insufficiently established. On unjust enrichment, the valid contractual basis precluded any Article 62 CO claim. Interest at 5% from 12 December 2022 was confirmed as claimed by RBFA.

Why Biolley matters in CAS jurisprudence

The award reinforces that CAS appellate jurisdiction is strictly derivative and cannot exceed the jurisdictional reach of the first-instance FIFA body, meaning corporate entities ineligible to hold a FIFA match-agent licence cannot be drawn into CAS appeal proceedings via an ostensible co-appeal. It also confirms that threshold admissibility objections based on contractual sequencing clauses must be raised at first instance or are waived, and that commercial difficulty in implementing a match-organisation contract does not automatically establish nullity or breach under Swiss law.

Decision: Appeal by MWF dismissed for lack of CAS jurisdiction; appeal by Biolley dismissed on the merits; Appealed Decision confirmed; Biolley ordered to pay RBFA EUR 275,000 plus 5% interest per annum from 12 December 2022.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2011/A/2331 CAS 2019/A/6112 CAS 2005/A/937 SFT 4A_313/2025 ATF 119 II 386 ATF 128 III 50

Frequently asked questions about Biolley

Why did CAS have no jurisdiction over Matchworld Football SA in the Biolley case?

CAS appellate jurisdiction is derivative and cannot exceed that of the first-instance body. The FIFA PSC's jurisdiction under Article 22(1) of the Match Agents Regulations is personal in scope and limited to licensed match agents; Article 4 of those Regulations expressly prohibits companies from holding a FIFA match-agent licence. Because MWF is a Swiss company and therefore categorically ineligible to hold such a licence, the FIFA PSC had no jurisdiction over it, and CAS could not acquire appellate jurisdiction over an entity in respect of which no valid first-instance decision existed.

Did Biolley successfully argue that RBFA's FIFA claim was inadmissible under Clause 8 of the Match Contract?

No. Clause 8 required RBFA to direct any claim first against MWF and to seek redress from Biolley only if MWF could not fully compensate the damage. However, the Panel held that Biolley waived this objection by engaging fully on the merits before the FIFA PSC — including filing a counterclaim — without ever raising it, in breach of the good-faith principle under Article 2 CC and Article 182(4) PILA. The Panel also held that Article R57 CAS Code does not operate as a procedural amnesty permitting a party to withhold a threshold objection at first instance and deploy it on appeal.

Was the Belgium–Egypt match contract held to be null and void because RBFA allegedly had no rights to transfer?

No. The Panel found that the evidence showed a serious practical complication in execution rather than legal impossibility within the meaning of Article 20 CO. The Match was ultimately played between the same teams on the same date and at the same venue as contractually agreed, only the home/away designation having changed. MWF had also actually entered into commercial arrangements with third parties such as Silver Spring Media and Sport Media Group, demonstrating that exploitation of the rights was not factually impossible from the outset. The preambular qualification that RBFA sold the rights 'insofar as possible' further weighed against nullity.

What interest rate and start date did CAS confirm on the EUR 275,000 outstanding instalment in the Biolley case?

CAS confirmed interest at 5% per annum from 12 December 2022 until the date of effective payment. The Panel noted that under Article 102 CO default arose automatically on 19 November 2022 — one day after the RBFA delegation arrived in Kuwait and the Match was played — but since RBFA itself had claimed interest only from 12 December 2022 (the date of its formal notice of default), the Panel was bound by that claim and could not award interest from an earlier date.

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 Biolley — free

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.