CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11640 — AVS – FUTEBOL, SAD v. FIFA and Welinton Junior Ferreira dos Santos

"AVS" · CAS confirmed AVS – Futebol, SAD is the sporting successor of CD Aves 1930 and must pay EUR 260,000 plus interest to a former player.

What happened in AVS

AVS – Futebol, SAD (formerly União Desportiva Vilafranquense Futebol, SAD, based in Vila Franca de Xira) relocated to Vila das Aves in 2023 after its founding club sold its remaining shares. It adopted the name 'AVS', took on red-and-white colours nearly identical to those of CD Aves 1930 (New Aves), leased the same stadium, and signed 86 youth players previously registered with New Aves. Brazilian player Welinton Junior Ferreira dos Santos held an unpaid FIFA DRC award of EUR 260,000 (plus 5% p.a. interest) against the original CD Aves entity, which had been declared insolvent. FIFA had already found New Aves to be the sporting successor of the original club. The player then sought a further sporting-succession finding against AVS. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee ruled on 2 June 2025 that AVS was the sporting successor of New Aves, ordered payment of EUR 260,000 plus interest, and imposed a CHF 20,000 fine. AVS appealed to CAS. The Panel conducted a de novo review, assessed all sporting-succession criteria (visual identity, corporate structure, geography, human resources), and confirmed that AVS had presented itself to the general public as the successor of New Aves. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety. The case matters because it extends the sporting-succession chain across three successive entities and reinforces that public perception — not legal formality — is the decisive test.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11640

On 24 July 2019, player Welinton Junior signed with Original Aves SAD. He terminated the contract on 6 April 2020 for unpaid wages. On 10 December 2020, the FIFA DRC (decision Ref. 20-00611) awarded him EUR 40,000 outstanding remuneration plus EUR 220,000 compensation, both with 5% p.a. interest. Original Aves SAD failed to pay; a registration ban was imposed on 3 February 2021. Original Aves SAD was declared insolvent on 7 January 2021. On 11 February 2022, FIFA ruled that CD Aves 1930 (New Aves) was the sporting successor of Original Aves SAD; that ruling became final. The ban was lifted on 22 August 2023 after three transfer periods elapsed. On 4 March 2024, the player filed a new claim before FIFA seeking a further sporting-succession finding against AVS. On 2 June 2025, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee found AVS to be the sporting successor of New Aves, ordered payment of EUR 260,000 plus interest and a CHF 20,000 fine. AVS filed its Statement of Appeal with CAS on 1 August 2025, within the 21-day deadline under Article 50 para. 1 of the FIFA Statutes.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11640

• AVS – Futebol, SAD is the sporting successor of CD Aves 1930 (New Aves) within the meaning of Article 21 para. 4 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code and Article 25 para. 1 of the RSTP.
• Sporting succession is determined by the general public's perception of the new club, not by whether a civil-law succession (merger, acquisition) has occurred between the entities.
• A chain of sporting successions (successor of a successor) does not constitute an impermissibly extensive interpretation of Article 21 para. 4 FDC; the relevant legal question remains solely whether the latest entity succeeded its immediate predecessor.
• The list of criteria in Article 21 para. 4 FDC (headquarters, name, legal form, team colours, players, shareholders/stakeholders, category of competition) is non-exhaustive and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis without a binding coefficient.
• Fraudulent or 'shady' practices are not a prerequisite for a finding of sporting succession; the absence of such practices does not preclude the conclusion that sporting succession exists.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Panel conducted a de novo review under Article R57 of the CAS Code, grouping the sporting-succession criteria into four categories: (i) visual identity, (ii) formal corporate aspects, (iii) geographical/local aspects, and (iv) human resources. On visual identity, the Panel found all sub-criteria met: the name 'AVS' phonetically approximates 'Aves'; the home kit is almost identical to New Aves'; and the emblem appears to be a modernised version of New Aves' shield. On corporate structure, the Panel found no link — no acquisition, merger, or shared sporting licence — and held this criterion unmet. On geography, the Panel found the criterion met: AVS leased the same stadium (the only one in Vila das Aves) and used premises previously occupied by the original club. On human resources, the criterion was only partly met: no first-team players transferred (explained by the multi-year gap in professional football), but 86 youth players did. The Panel rejected AVS's argument that approval by the FPF, Liga Portugal, and other authorities precluded a sporting-succession finding, holding that those bodies assess compliance with Portuguese sports law, not the FIFA Disciplinary Code. Applying the maxim cuius commode, eius et incommode, the Panel held that AVS, having chosen to profit from the established football culture in Vila das Aves, must also bear the associated liabilities.

Why AVS matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award extends the sporting-succession doctrine across a three-link chain (Original Aves SAD → New Aves → AVS), confirming that each succession is assessed bilaterally between the immediate predecessor and alleged successor. It reinforces that public perception — evidenced primarily by visual identity and local rootedness — is the paramount criterion, and that regulatory approval of a club's relocation and rebranding by national football authorities does not immunise the club from a FIFA sporting-succession finding.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2007/A/1394 CAS 2020/A/7092 CAS 2020/A/7290 CAS 2020/A/7543 CAS 2023/A/9807 CAS 2024/A/10431

Frequently asked questions about AVS

Why was AVS found to be the sporting successor of CD Aves 1930 even though it was a completely different legal entity incorporated in 2013?

The Panel held that sporting succession is distinct from civil-law succession and turns on the general public's perception rather than corporate identity. AVS adopted a name phonetically resembling 'Aves', used an almost identical home kit and a modernised version of New Aves' emblem, leased the same stadium, and signed 86 former New Aves youth players — collectively creating the public impression of continuity with New Aves. The fact that no merger or acquisition occurred was therefore not decisive.

Does the AVS case mean that a club can become a sporting successor simply by leasing another club's stadium?

No. The Panel expressly stated that, as a general position, the mere lease of a stadium is insufficient for sporting succession. In the AVS case, the stadium criterion was only one of several strong factors — including near-identical visual identity and 86 transferred youth players — that together established the sporting succession. The Panel confirmed it did not rely solely on the lease of the stadium.

Can sporting succession be found across a chain of three entities — i.e., is AVS liable for debts of the original CD Aves SAD even though New Aves was the intermediate successor?

Yes. The Panel held that finding AVS liable does not constitute an impermissibly extensive interpretation of Article 21 para. 4 FDC. Although the situation appears as a 'succession-succession', it is legally a bilateral question of whether AVS succeeded New Aves. Because New Aves was already bound by the original FIFA DRC decision (Ref. 20-00611 of 10 December 2020), AVS — as New Aves' sporting successor — is equally bound by it and must pay EUR 260,000 plus 5% p.a. interest to the player.

Is fraudulent intent or an abusive corporate restructuring required to establish sporting succession under Article 21 para. 4 FDC?

No. The Panel confirmed, citing CAS 2020/A/7290 para. 88 and CAS 2013/A/3425, that fraudulent or 'shady' practices are not a prerequisite for sporting succession. The Panel found no evidence of fraudulent conduct by AVS, yet still concluded that sporting succession existed because AVS had the opportunity to distinguish itself clearly from New Aves — particularly regarding visual identity — and chose not to, thereby profiting from the established football culture in Vila das Aves.

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.