CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11975 — Fudbalski klub Arsenal Tivat v. UEFA

"Arsenal Tivat" · CAS upheld a seven-year UEFA competition ban and EUR 400,000 fine on FK Arsenal Tivat for match-fixing in the 2023/24 UEFA Conference League qualifying rounds.

What happened in Arsenal Tivat

FK Arsenal Tivat, a Montenegrin club owned by the Municipality of Tivat, qualified for the 2023/24 UEFA Conference League after finishing third in the Montenegrin First League. In July 2023, both legs of their Q1 tie against FC Alashkert Yerevan attracted multiple betting-integrity alerts from Sportradar, IBIA, Genius Sports, Starlizard, and the Malta Gaming Authority, all pointing to manipulation. A UEFA Ethics and Disciplinary Inspector investigated and found that the Club's Sporting Director (Krgović) and several players (Čelebić, Manojlović, Živković, Puletić) had arranged the outcome of one or both matches. The CEDB imposed a EUR 500,000 fine and a 10-year UEFA competition ban. The UEFA Appeals Body partially upheld the Club's appeal, reducing the sanction to EUR 400,000 and a 7-year ban after one player (Puletić) was acquitted on appeal. The Club then appealed to CAS, arguing it should not be liable for its Sporting Director's failure to cooperate, that mitigating circumstances were ignored, and that the sanction was disproportionate. CAS dismissed the appeal in full, confirming the 7-year ban and EUR 400,000 fine. The case matters because it reinforces strict club liability for officials' non-cooperation and sets a clear proportionality benchmark for match-fixing sanctions involving multiple club officials.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11975

On 4 July 2025, the UEFA Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body (CEDB) found FK Arsenal Tivat responsible under Articles 8, 11, and 12 of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations for match-fixing in both Q1 legs of the 2023/24 UECL, imposing a EUR 500,000 fine and a 10-year UEFA competition ban. The Club appealed to the UEFA Appeals Body (AB) on 28 July 2025, not disputing liability but arguing mitigating circumstances and disproportionality, and requesting a reduction to EUR 400,000 and a 2-year ban. On 23 September 2025, the AB partially upheld the appeal, reducing the fine to EUR 400,000 and the ban to 7 years (through the 2031/32 season), citing the acquittal of one player (Puletić) and the Ventspils Decision as a benchmark. The AB's decision was notified to the Club on 18 November 2025. The Club filed a Statement of Appeal at CAS on 27 November 2025, seeking a reduction to a EUR 10,000 fine and a 1-year ban. A hearing was held by videoconference on 16 April 2026.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11975

• A club is strictly liable under Article 8 of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations for its official's failure to cooperate with a UEFA disciplinary investigation under Article 11(2)(k), even if the official acted solely in his own interest and even in the absence of any fault or negligence by the club.
• The privilege against self-incrimination cannot be invoked in UEFA disciplinary proceedings to excuse non-cooperation unless there is evidence of actual parallel criminal proceedings creating a genuine risk of criminal incrimination, and the individual must have actually raised the privilege during the investigation.
• A club's clean disciplinary record is not a mitigating circumstance but merely the absence of an aggravating factor; where the club's first-ever UEFA competition participation coincided with the violations, the lack of prior sanctions carries no mitigating weight.
• Mere compliance with the obligation to answer questions during a UEFA investigation does not constitute 'cooperation' sufficient to justify mitigation of sanctions; proactive conduct going beyond mandatory compliance is required.
• A seven-year UEFA competition ban and EUR 400,000 fine imposed on a club for match-fixing involving its Sporting Director and multiple players, including the team captain who was also a board member, are proportionate and not grossly disproportionate to the severity of the violations.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Panel applied an objective interpretive approach to Article 8 of the UEFA DR, starting from its plain wording, which imposes strict liability on clubs for violations by officials 'even if the member association or the club concerned can prove the absence of any fault or negligence.' It found no exception carved out for Article 11(2)(k) violations and rejected the self-incrimination argument as unsubstantiated speculation, noting the Sporting Director never raised the privilege and no parallel criminal proceedings were shown to exist. On mitigating circumstances, the Panel found that: compliance with interview obligations is mandatory and not praiseworthy; contractual annexes were adopted to satisfy FAM requirements, not spontaneously; the Code of Conduct's absence at the time of violations was itself a negative indicator; the Captain remained on the Board until March 2025; and the Criminal Complaint was characterised as a reputational 'PR operation.' On proportionality, the Panel applied the Swiss-law proportionality test (legitimate aim, suitability, necessity, reasonableness), accepted that eradicating match-fixing is a primary UEFA objective, and found the sanctions suitable and necessary. It rejected case comparisons as insufficiently determinative, noted the Club's first-offence status was contextually hollow since the violations occurred in its only-ever UEFA matches, and discounted the Financial Statements as potentially unreliable given understated assets and omitted donations. The Club's own prior request for EUR 400,000 before the AB further undermined its disproportionality argument.

Why Arsenal Tivat matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award consolidates CAS jurisprudence on two points: first, that Article 8 UEFA DR strict club liability extends without exception to an official's failure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation, regardless of the official's motive; second, that a club's first-offence status carries no mitigating weight when the violations occurred in the club's only-ever UEFA matches. The award also provides a proportionality benchmark — a 7-year ban and EUR 400,000 fine — for multi-actor match-fixing involving a sporting director and a captain-cum-board-member, anchored to the Ventspils Decision referenced in the Appealed Decision.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2008/A/1673 CAS 2009/A/1810 CAS 2009/A/1811 CAS 2017/A/5003 CAS 2020/A/7611 CAS 2022/A/8651

Frequently asked questions about Arsenal Tivat

Why was FK Arsenal Tivat held responsible for its Sporting Director's refusal to cooperate with UEFA investigators?

Under Article 8 of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations, a club is strictly liable for violations committed by its officials even in the absence of any fault or negligence by the club itself. The Panel found that this strict liability rule applies without exception to Article 11(2)(k) violations (failure to cooperate), and that the Sporting Director's personal motive for non-cooperation was irrelevant to the Club's liability.

Did Arsenal Tivat's clean disciplinary record help reduce its sanction in the CAS appeal?

No. The Panel held that a clean record is not technically a mitigating circumstance but merely the absence of an aggravating factor such as recidivism. Crucially, the Panel noted that the Club had never previously played in a UEFA competition before the two manipulated matches, so the absence of prior UEFA sanctions was directly linked to the absence of prior UEFA participation, stripping the clean-record argument of any mitigating force.

How did CAS assess the proportionality of the seven-year UEFA ban and EUR 400,000 fine imposed on Arsenal Tivat?

The Panel applied the Swiss-law proportionality test, requiring a legitimate aim, suitability, necessity, and overall reasonableness. It found that eradicating match-fixing is a primary UEFA objective under Article 2 of the UEFA Statutes, that the sanctions were suitable deterrents, and that they did not exceed what was necessary given the involvement of multiple persons including the Sporting Director and the team captain who was also a board member. The Club's own prior request for EUR 400,000 before the UEFA Appeals Body further undermined its claim that this amount was disproportionate.

Can a club in UEFA disciplinary proceedings invoke the privilege against self-incrimination to excuse an official's non-cooperation?

Only in very limited circumstances. The Panel, citing CAS 2017/A/5003, stated that the privilege could be considered only where there is an actual risk of criminal incrimination in parallel pending criminal proceedings. In this case, the Sporting Director never raised the privilege during his interview with the UEFA Ethics and Disciplinary Inspector, no evidence of parallel criminal proceedings was presented, and the Panel characterised the Club's argument as 'pure speculation,' dismissing it entirely.

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.