CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11995 — A. & Panthessalonikeios Athlitikos Omilos Konstantinoupoliton – PAOK Football Societe Anonyme v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

"A. & PAOK v. FIFA" · CAS overturned FIFA's refusal to register a Greek-born minor returning to Greece with his family, finding the move was not football-driven.

What happened in A. & PAOK v. FIFA

A. is a Greek national born in 2010 who moved to Brazil in 2022 when his Brazilian father retired from professional football. In April 2023 he registered with Palmeiras SE. By early 2025, the family's economic situation in Brazil had not stabilised, the maternal grandmother in Greece needed care, and A. received an invitation to the Greek U-15 National Team. The family decided in spring 2025 to return to Greece, arrived on 24 August 2025, and Palmeiras deregistered A. on 29 August 2025. The mother secured employment with a Greek company from 10 September 2025, a house lease was signed on 4 September 2025, and school enrolment was confirmed on 5 September 2025. PAOK applied through the HFF on 12 September 2025 for approval of A.'s international transfer under Article 19 par. 2(a) RSTP. On 29 October 2025 the FIFA Players' Status Chamber (Single Judge) rejected the application, finding it could not be excluded that the move was linked to football. PAOK and A. appealed to CAS. The Panel, applying a 'comfortable satisfaction' standard, found the relocation was principally motivated by economic instability in Brazil, family ties in Greece, and the mother's employment opportunity — not by football. The appeal was upheld and A.'s amateur registration with PAOK was approved. The case matters because it clarifies that a minor's return to his country of birth and origin after a short period abroad, driven by genuine family and economic reasons, satisfies Article 19 par. 2(a) RSTP even where a national-team invitation existed in the background.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11995

On 12 September 2025 the Hellenic Football Federation (HFF), on behalf of PAOK, submitted an application in the Transfer Matching System (TMS reference D-0018908) to the FIFA Players' Status Chamber (FIFA PSC) for approval of the international transfer of minor player A. from Palmeiras SE under Article 19 par. 2(a) RSTP. On 29 October 2025 the Single Judge of the FIFA PSC rejected the application, finding it could not be thoroughly excluded that the parents' move to Greece was linked, to some extent, to the Player's football career. The grounds were notified via TMS on 14 November 2025 and forwarded to the Appellants on 17 November 2025. On 9 December 2025 A. and PAOK filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS under Article 58 of the FIFA Statutes and Articles R47 and R48 of the CAS Code, agreeing to an expedited procedure. The Appeal Brief was filed on 18 December 2025; FIFA's Answer was filed on 19 January 2026. A hearing was held by video-conference on 27 January 2026. The operative part of the Award was notified on 3 February 2026.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11995

• The applicable standard of proof for invoking the Article 19 par. 2(a) RSTP exception is 'comfortable satisfaction', not 'beyond reasonable doubt', consistent with the FIFA Guide 2026 Edition and CAS 2020/A/7503.
• Article 19 RSTP must be interpreted strictly to protect minors from trafficking and exploitation, but a strict interpretation does not justify a mechanical or excessive application that penalises a legitimate family return to the country of origin.
• The 'football factor' must be the decisive or prevailing cause of the relocation; the mere existence of a football-related circumstance in the background is insufficient to exclude the Article 19 par. 2(a) exception where other non-football reasons predominate.
• A minor's nationality and prior residence in the destination country are relevant contextual factors in assessing whether a relocation is linked to football, even though Article 19 RSTP is triggered by movement between associations rather than by nationality alone.
• Where the family's contact with the club followed the relocation decision and was a consequence of settling in the new country rather than its cause, the Article 19 par. 2(a) exception is satisfied.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Panel began by confirming CAS jurisdiction and admissibility, then identified the central question as whether the 'football factor' was the decisive or merely a background element in the family's move. It adopted the 'comfortable satisfaction' standard, noting FIFA's own 2026 Guide had shifted from 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Drawing on CAS 2020/A/7503, the Panel stressed that relocations are rarely mono-causal and must be assessed case by case. It weighed the following factors in favour of the Appellants: A. was a Greek national who had spent the first twelve years of his life in Greece; the father's retirement and economic instability in Brazil pre-dated any football invitation; the maternal grandmother required care in Greece; the maternal uncle had been searching for employment for his sister before 2025 and secured her a job; school enrolment (5 September 2025), the house lease (4 September 2025), and the mother's employment (10 September 2025) were all completed within weeks of arrival, consistent with a planned family move. The Panel rejected FIFA's argument that the absence of pre-departure written employment documentation was fatal, noting that formal steps commonly follow relocation. It distinguished CAS 2013/A/3140 on its facts and found no evidence that PAOK had initiated contact with the family before their arrival. The Panel declined to address the UNCRC and ECHR arguments as unnecessary given its factual finding.

Why A. & PAOK v. FIFA matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award clarifies that a minor's return to his country of birth and nationality after a short period abroad is a weighty contextual factor under Article 19 par. 2(a) RSTP, and that the 'football factor' must be the predominant cause — not merely a background element — to defeat the exception. It also confirms the shift from 'beyond reasonable doubt' to 'comfortable satisfaction' as the operative standard of proof, aligning CAS jurisprudence with FIFA's own updated 2026 Guide.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2015/A/4312 CAS 2020/A/7503 CAS 2023/A/10032 CAS 2014/A/3793 CAS 2013/A/3140 CAS 2017/A/5244

Frequently asked questions about A. & PAOK v. FIFA

Why did CAS approve PAOK's registration of a minor despite the Greek U-15 national team invitation?

The Panel found that the national-team invitation was not the decisive factor in the family's relocation; rather, economic instability in Brazil, the mother's employment opportunity in Thessaloniki, and the need to care for the maternal grandmother were the predominant reasons. Because the 'football factor' must be the prevailing cause — not merely a background element — to defeat the Article 19 par. 2(a) RSTP exception, the Panel was comfortably satisfied the move was not football-driven and approved the registration.

What standard of proof applies when invoking the Article 19 par. 2(a) RSTP exception for a minor's international transfer?

The Panel confirmed that the applicable standard is 'comfortable satisfaction', not 'beyond reasonable doubt'. This aligns with FIFA's own 2026 Guide to Submitting a Minor Application and with CAS 2020/A/7503 (para. 95), which held there is no justification for requiring a higher standard than that applied in doping and corruption matters. The burden of proof rests on the party claiming the benefit of the exception.

Does a minor's nationality or prior residence in the destination country affect the Article 19 RSTP analysis?

Yes, as a contextual factor. The Panel noted that A. was a Greek national who had spent the first twelve years of his life in Greece and was effectively returning to his country of origin after less than three years in Brazil. While Article 19 RSTP is triggered by movement between associations rather than by nationality alone — a point FIFA successfully argued — the Panel held that nationality and prior residence are relevant circumstances when assessing whether the move was genuinely linked to football.

Can a family's failure to finalise housing and schooling before relocating defeat the Article 19 par. 2(a) RSTP exception?

Not automatically. The Panel rejected FIFA's argument that the absence of pre-departure written employment documentation, school enrolment, and housing contracts proved the move was football-driven. It found that completing formal steps after arrival is common in family relocations, and that the family's swift organisation — house lease signed 4 September 2025, school enrolment confirmed 5 September 2025, mother's employment commencing 10 September 2025 — was consistent with a planned return facilitated by strong pre-existing ties to Greece.

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.