CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11581 — Enes Usta v. Football Federation of Macedonia (FFM)

"Usta v. FFM" · CAS upheld a two-year functional ban and EUR 1,500 fine on a club owner who ordered his team to abandon a league match in the 85th minute.

What happened in Usta v. FFM

Enes Usta, owner and president of FC Gostivar (North Macedonia), instructed his team captain and head coach to withdraw the players from the pitch in the 85th minute of a First Macedonian Football League match on 27 April 2025, when the score stood at 1-2 against FK Rabotnički. The team did not return after a 15-minute wait. The FFM Disciplinary Commission imposed a two-year ban from performing any football function and a EUR 1,500 fine under Articles 72 and 78 of the FFM Disciplinary Regulations. The FFM Appeals Commission confirmed the sanction on 12 May 2025. Usta appealed to CAS, arguing the sanctions were disproportionate, that he acted in response to suspected match-fixing and biased refereeing, that the FFM had discriminatorily withheld EUR 150,000 in UEFA solidarity funds, and that internal proceedings lacked due process. CAS dismissed the appeal in full. The Panel found Usta retained sufficient legal interest despite the Club's subsequent withdrawal from competition. On the merits, the Panel held the abandonment was among the gravest inducement offenses, that none of the invoked mitigating factors justified reduction, and that aggravating circumstances — including the Club's subsequent failure to appear for two further matches and the resulting disqualification — supported the maximum sanction. The case matters because it affirms that a club owner's unilateral match abandonment, even if motivated by integrity concerns, cannot be excused and warrants the harshest available penalty.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11581

On 28 April 2025 the FFM Disciplinary Commission opened ex officio proceedings against Usta. On 2 May 2025 it imposed a two-year ban from performing any football function and a EUR 1,500 fine (decision no. 0801-1206/4) under Articles 72 and 78 of the FFM Disciplinary Regulations. The Club appealed on behalf of Usta on 6 May 2025. On 12 May 2025 the FFM Appeals Commission issued decision no. 10-1275/4 rejecting the appeal and confirming the sanction in full. Usta filed his CAS Statement of Appeal on 1 July 2025 under Article R47 of the CAS Code, challenging both the first-instance and appellate decisions. The appeal was initially directed against two separate decisions, leading to the opening of parallel proceedings CAS 2025/A/11562 and CAS 2025/A/11581; the parties subsequently agreed to submit both to the same Panel. A request for a stay of execution was rejected by the President of the Appeals Arbitration Division on 22 August 2025. The hearing was held in Lausanne on 29 January 2026, and post-hearing supplementary evidence was admitted by majority decision of the Panel.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11581

• A club owner retains sufficient legal interest to appeal a disciplinary sanction before CAS where the club remains affiliated to the federation, an enforceable fine subsists, and the ban carries recidivism and reputational consequences, even if the club has withdrawn from active competition.
• Any procedural defects in FFM disciplinary proceedings are cured by the de novo review conducted by CAS under Article R57 of the CAS Code.
• Ordering players to abandon a match constitutes inducement contrary to Article 72 of the FFM Disciplinary Regulations and ranks among the gravest offenses within that category because it replaces sporting merit with administrative forfeiture and undermines competition integrity.
• Suspected match-fixing or biased refereeing does not justify a unilateral match abandonment and cannot constitute a mitigating circumstance; the proper remedy is to complete the fixture and pursue formal complaints through established institutional channels.
• Where the gravity of the offense and aggravating factors — including the Club's subsequent failure to appear for two further matches — demonstrate from the outset that only the maximum sanction can adequately address the violation, the principle of exhausting lesser sanctions before imposing the maximum does not apply.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Panel first confirmed jurisdiction under Article 8 of the FFM Statutes and CAS's de novo review power under Article R57 of the CAS Code, holding that any FFM procedural defects were cured. On legal interest, the Panel applied the Swiss Federal Tribunal's 'practical use' standard (ATF 137 II 40) and CAS 2018/A/5661 on affiliation as the precondition for federation jurisdiction, finding the enforceable fine, the recidivism risk, and reputational harm each independently sustained standing. On the merits, the Panel characterised match abandonment as one of the gravest inducement offenses under Article 72 FFM DR, citing four reasons: replacement of sporting merit by administrative forfeiture, disruption of a 33-round championship at a critical juncture, reputational harm to football, and harm to multiple third parties. The Panel rejected each mitigating argument by majority: an unblemished record is a factor to consider but not an obligatory mitigant for offenses of this magnitude; integrity concerns must be pursued through formal channels; the UEFA solidarity fund dispute was unrelated to the disciplinary matter and no causal nexus was shown; and the post-hearing FFM Publication on UEFA Integrity Department correspondence did not concern FC Gostivar's match. The Panel treated the Club's subsequent non-appearance in Rounds 30 and 31 as an aggravating factor evidencing wilful disregard and lack of remorse. It distinguished CAS 2011/A/2670 (Omeragik v. FFM) on the basis that the violation here was undisputed and supported by evidence. Consistency with the sanction imposed on Mr Nefi Useini of FK Voska Sport for a similar offense was held to strengthen, not undermine, the decision's legitimacy.

Why Usta v. FFM matters in CAS jurisprudence

The award establishes that a club owner who orders a match abandonment — even invoking integrity concerns — cannot rely on those concerns as mitigation, and that the maximum functional ban under the applicable regulations is proportionate where aggravating post-offense conduct compounds the original violation. It also clarifies that club affiliation to a federation, rather than active competition participation, is the determinative criterion for legal interest before CAS, and that consistency with sanctions imposed in comparable cases reinforces rather than undermines proportionality.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2016/A/4704 CAS 2015/A/4162 CAS 2014/A/3848 CAS 2013/A/3256 CAS 2009/A/1880-1881 CAS 2018/A/5661 CAS 2015/A/4095 CAS 2014/A/3832 & 3833 CAS 2011/A/2670

Frequently asked questions about Usta v. FFM

Why did CAS uphold the two-year ban on Enes Usta even though he claimed the match was affected by match-fixing?

The Panel held by majority that suspected match-fixing, however legitimate as a concern, does not justify a unilateral match abandonment and cannot constitute a mitigating circumstance. The proper course was to complete the fixture and then pursue formal complaints through FFM or law enforcement channels. Usta produced no concrete evidence of match-fixing in relation to the abandoned match itself, and the post-hearing UEFA Integrity Department correspondence admitted as new evidence did not concern FC Gostivar's match.

Did Usta have standing to appeal before CAS given that FC Gostivar had withdrawn from competition and he was living in Malta?

Yes. The Panel found Usta retained sufficient legal interest on three grounds: FC Gostivar remained affiliated to the FFM (applying the affiliation principle from CAS 2018/A/5661), the EUR 1,500 fine remained enforceable against him, and the two-year ban carried recidivism and reputational consequences relevant to his ongoing role as owner and president of a Maltese club. The Panel applied the Swiss Federal Tribunal's 'practical use' standard from ATF 137 II 40.

What aggravating factors led the CAS panel to confirm the maximum sanction in Usta v. FFM?

The majority identified several aggravating factors: match officials were warned before kick-off by an accredited club representative that the team would leave if losing; the abandonment occurred in Round 29 of a 33-round championship at a critical stage affecting standings, European qualification, and relegation; and, most significantly, Usta subsequently presided over FC Gostivar's failure to appear for the next two matches (Rounds 30 and 31), resulting in the Club's disqualification and relegation to the fourth-level Municipal League, demonstrating wilful disregard and lack of remorse.

Does the Usta v. FFM case mean that a club official can never rely on integrity concerns to reduce a sanction for match abandonment?

Based on this award, the majority of the Panel held that integrity concerns do not provide legal justification for abandoning a match and cannot be treated as a mitigating circumstance, because allowing such a defence would set a dangerous precedent enabling any dissatisfied official to disrupt competitions unilaterally. The Panel emphasised that even if the Appellant's suspicions were well-founded — a matter on which it made no determination — the appropriate remedy was to complete the fixture and pursue complaints through established institutional mechanisms or law enforcement authorities.

Topics: Training compensation & solidarity 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.