TAS - CAS 3665, 3666, 3667

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS 2014/A/3665, 3666 & 3667 Luis Suárez, FC Barcelona & Asociación Uruguaya de Fútbol (AUF) v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), award of 2 December 2014 (operative part notified on 14 August 2014) Panel: Mr Bernhard Welten (Switzerland), President; Prof. Luigi Fumagalli (Italy); Mr Marco Balmelli (Switzerland) Football Assault committed by a player during a match Standing to sue of a club directly affected by a sanction against a player Principle ne bis in idem and application of two different rules to the same facts Principle nulla poena sine lege certa Discretion of the FIFA disciplinary bodies in the consideration of mitigating and aggravating factors Recidivism Proportionality of the sanction

1. According to art. 119 para. 1 FIFA DC, 2011 edition, anyone who has been a party to the proceedings before the first instance and has a legal protected interest justifying amendment or cancellation of the decision may lodge an appeal with the Appeal Committee. If a club was not a party to the proceedings before the FIFA disciplinary bodies, in a case where the FIFA authorities are issuing a sanction against a player and such sanction affects direct financial interests of a club, such club must have the possibility to appeal such decision in order to be able to protect its legal interests, even if these interests became actual after the challenged decision was issued.

2. The application of two different rules to the same facts involves the question of the relation between the two applied rules, in the sense that the application of one of these rules possibly “consumes” the application of the other rule. This question is not covered by the principle “ne bis in idem” which, in fact, appears to give rise to a kind of procedural defence, forbidding a defendant from being tried again on the same (or

similar) charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction, and does not concern the substantive issue of the possible concurrent application by a single hearing body of a plurality of rules to the same and only behaviour.

3. It is not necessary for the principles of predictability and legality to be respected that the football player should know, in advance of his infringement, the exact rule he may infringe, as well as the measure and kind of sanction he is liable to incur because of the infringement. The principles of predictability and legality are satisfied whenever the disciplinary rules have been properly adopted, describe the infringement and provide, directly or by reference, for the relevant sanction. The fact that the competent body

applying the FIFA DC has the discretion to adjust the sanction mentioned in the rules deemed applicable to the individual behaviour of a player breaching such rules is not CAS 2014/A/3665, 3666 & 3667 2 Luis Suárez, FC Barcelona & AUF v. FIFA, award of 2 December 2014 (operative part of 14 August 2014) inconsistent with those principles and with the general principle “nulla poena sine lege certa”.

4. The FIFA DC, unlike State criminal codes, does not provide a system of general rules defining standard sanctions to be increased (or reduced) by given percentages (by the half, one third or the like) if named aggravating or mitigating circumstances are found.

In view of art. 39 par. 4 FIFA DC, the bodies pronouncing the sanction for a violation of the FIFA DC shall take into account all relevant factors in the case, as well as the degree of the offender’s guilt. In other words, the disciplinary bodies have to consider all the relevant circumstances, which include mitigating but also aggravating factors.

5. Recidivism is specifically mentioned as an aggravating factor to be considered, in view

of art. 39 par. 4 FIFA DC, without any limitation with regard to the circumstances of the previous violations, i.e. irrespective of the level (national or international) of the

competition in which the same infringement had already occurred.

6. If an offender is responsible (only) for the violation of one provision of the FIFA DC, he can be sanctioned only under that provision. Therefore, different kinds of sanctions cannot be applied to the offender. However, in the determination of the sanction in a kind allowed by that provision, the measure of the sanction applied by the first instance disciplinary bodies must be taken into account, in order to respect the principle of proportionality.

I. THE PARTIES

1. Luis Alberto Suárez Díaz (hereinafter referred to as the “Player”) is a Uruguayan professional football player who played for the national team of Uruguay in the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™. Since 16 July 2014, Mr Suarez is playing for Fútbol Club Barcelona, Spain.

2. Fútbol Club Barcelona (hereinafter referred to as “FC Barcelona” or the “Club”) is a football club with its registered seat in Barcelona, Spain. It is a member of the “Liga de Fútbol Profesional (LFP)” and the “Real Federación Española de Futbol (RFEF)” which has been affiliated to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association since 1904.

3. The Asociación Uruguaya de Fútbol (hereinafter referred to as “AUF”; the Player, the Club and AUF are hereinafter jointly referred to as the “Appellants”) is the national football association governing football in Uruguay. It has been a member of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association since 1923.

4. The Fédération Internationale de Football Association (hereinafter referred to as the “Respondent” or “FIFA”) is the international governing body of football on a worldwide level.

It is an association under Swiss law, has its registered office in Zurich, Switzerland and exercises CAS 2014/A/3665, 3666 & 3667 3 Luis Suárez, FC Barcelona & AUF v. FIFA,

award of 2 December 2014 (operative part of 14 August 2014) regulatory, supervisory and disciplinary functions over continental confederations, national associations, clubs, officials and players, worldwide.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

5. The elements set out below are a summary of the relevant facts emerging from the Parties’ written pleadings or in the evidence offered in the course of the proceedings. Additional facts may be set out, where relevant, in connection with the legal discussion which follows.

6. On 24 June 2014, the national team of the AUF played a match against Italy in the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ (hereinafter referred to as the “Match”). In the 78th minute of the Match there was an incident between the Player and Giorgio Chiellini, a player from the Italian national team. Both players fell to the ground, the referee stopped the Match and granted a free kick to Italy. The referee as well as the assistant referees and the fourth referee did not mention anything about this incident in their official reports. On the same 24 June 2014, the secretariat of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee asked the referee, the assistant referees and the fourth official if they had seen the before mentioned incident. All four referees confirmed that they had not seen it.

7. On 24 June 2014, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee initiated disciplinary proceedings against the Player for having violated art. 48 par. 1 lit. d) and art. 57 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code

(hereinafter the “FIFA DC”).

8. On 25 June 2014, the Player and the AUF sent their written statements to the FIFA Disciplinary

Committee.

9. On 25 June 2014, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee decided the following1: “1. The player Luis Suárez is declared guilty of the infringement of art. 48 par. 1 d) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code for having committed an act of assault during the match between Italy and Uruguay

played on 24 June 2014 at the 2014 World Cup Brazil™.

2. The player Luis Suárez is declared guilty of the infringement of art. 57 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code for having committed an act that contravenes the principles of fair play and sportsmanship during the match between Italy and Uruguay played on 24 June 2014 at the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™.

3. In application of art. 11 c) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code, the player Luis Suárez is suspended for nine (9) consecutive official matches of the representative team of Uruguay, which must be served in the following manner: 1 Unofficial translation by FIFA from the Spanish original of the decision of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.

CAS 2014/A/3665, 3666 & 3667 4

Luis Suárez, FC Barcelona & AUF v. FIFA, award of 2 December 2014 (operative part of 14 August 2014) The first suspension:  The first suspension must be served during the next match of the representative team of Uruguay within the final competition of the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™, i.e. the following match: • Colombia vs. Uruguay, 28 June 2014 The subsequent suspensions must be served in the following manner:  If the representative team of Uruguay qualifies for the next round(s) of the final competition of the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™, the remaining suspensions must be served during this competition.  The remaining suspensions that are not served in the final competition of the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ must be carried over to the next official matches of the representative team of Uruguay, as stipulated by art. 38 par. 2 a) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code.

4. In application of art. 22 of the FDC, the player Luis Suárez is banned from taking part in any footballrelated activity (administrative, sporting or of any other kind) for four (4) consecutive months as from the

date of notification of this decision to the Uruguayan Football Association.

5. In application of art. 21 of the FDC, the player Luis Suárez is banned from entering the confines of any stadiums during the period of four (4) months in which he is banned from taking part in any footballrelated activity (cf. point II.4) and the stadiums in which the representative team of Uruguay plays for the duration of the suspension for nine (9) consecutive official matches of the representative team of Uruguay

(cf. point III.3).

6. In application of art. 10 c) of the FDC, the player Luis Suárez is sanctioned to pay a fine in the amount of CHF 100,000. This fine is to be paid within 30 days of notification of this decision. This payment may be made in Swiss francs (CHF) to […].

7. The procedural costs will be dispensed in application of art. 105 par. 5 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code”.

10. On 26 June 2014, the decision of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee was communicated to the Player and the AUF.

11. On 27 June 2014, the Player informed the FIFA Appeal Committee through his legal representative of his intention to lodge an appeal against the decision of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee rendered on 25 June 2014.

12. On 29 June 2014, the AUF informed the FIFA Appeal Committee of its intention to lodge an appeal against the decision of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee of 25 June 2014 as well.

13. On 30 June 2014, the Player released a statement on his personal website, the media and social networks, in which he recognized his misconduct, expressed his deepest regrets, apologized and promised that nothing like the incident in question would ever happen again.

14. Against the decision of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee rendered on 25 June 2014 appeals were filed by the Player on 1 July 2014 and by the AUF on 3 July 2014.

CAS 2014/A/3665, 3666 & 3667 5

Luis Suárez, FC Barcelona & AUF v. FIFA, award of 2 December 2014 (operative part of 14 August 2014)

15. On 8 July 2014, the FIFA Appeal Committee issued its decision on such appeals and stated the following2: “1. The appeal submitted by the player Luis Suárez is rejected.

2. The appeal submitted by the Uruguayan Football Association is rejected.

3. The decision of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee taken on 25 June 2014 is confirmed in its entirety.

4. The costs and expenses of these proceedings amounting to CHF 6,000 must be shared equitably by the Player and the Uruguayan Football Association. This amount is set off against the amounts paid by each of CHF 3,000, which were paid as a deposit by the Player and the Uruguayan Football Association”.

16. On 10 July 2014, the operative part of the decision rendered by the FIFA Appeal Committee was communicated to the Player and the AUF by facsimile and email.

17. On 11 July 2014, the Player and the AUF requested to be provided with the reasoning of the decision passed by the FIFA Appeal Committee.

18. On 22 July 2014, the reasons of the decision rendered by the FIFA Appeal Committee on 8

July 2014 were communicated to the Player and the AUF.

III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CAS AND PARTIES’ REQUESTS FOR RELIEF

19. On 23 July 2014, the Player, FC Barcelona and the AUF filed separate statements of appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (hereinafter referred to as the “CAS”) to challenge the decision of the FIFA Appeal Committee of 8 July 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the “Appealed Decision”), pursuant to art. R47 et seq. of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”). By these appeals, in essence, the Appellants sought the setting aside

of the Appealed Decision or, if the case, the reduction to a milder measure of the sanction thereby imposed on the Player.

20. The arbitration proceedings so started were registered by the CAS Court Office as follows: CAS 2014/A/3665, Luis Suarez v. FIFA; CAS 2014/A/3666, FC Barcelona v. FIFA; and CAS 2014/A/3667, Uruguayan Football Association v. FIFA. In their respect, the Player and FC Barcelona in their statements of appeal designated Prof. Luigi Fumagalli as a member of the Panel. In its statement of appeal the AUF consented to such appointment.

21. In addition, the Appellants indicated that the Parties had reached an agreement regarding an expedited procedural timetable, according to which the Player and FC Barcelona would file their appeal briefs on 27 July 2014, the AUF would file its appeal brief on 28 July 2014, FIFA would file its answer on 6 August 2014 and the hearing would be held on 8 August 2014.

22. On 24 July 2014, the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of the statements of appeal, 2 Unofficial translation by FIFA from the Spanish original of the decision of the FIFA Appeal Committee.

CAS 2014/A/3665, 3666 & 3667 6

Luis Suárez, FC Barcelona & AUF v. FIFA, award of 2 December 2014 (operative part of 14 August 2014) informed the Parties that the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division had decided to consolidate the three appeal proceedings in accordance with art. R52 of the Code, and took note of the Parties’ agreement to the expedited calendar.

23. On 27 July 2014, the Player and FC Barcelona filed their respective appeal briefs, of identical content, and confirmed their requests for relief as follows: “1. The present appeal against FIFA Appeal Committee’s decision dated 8 July 2014 is accepted.

2. The decision by FIFA Appeal Committee dated 8 July 2014 shall be annulled and a new decision is issued in which, having considered all the pertinent factors and attendant circumstances, the sanction to be imposed is a lesser one than the sanction imposed in the Appealed Decision, and specifically consist of:

a. A match ban for a number of consecutive official matches of the Uruguayan national team between 2 and 9, or b. Alternatively, a match ban for a number of consecutive official matches of the Uruguayan national team between 2 and 9, and a monetary fine for an amount that is no greater than the CHF 100,000 established in the Appealed Decision.

3. FIFA shall be condemned to pay the legal costs and other expenses incurred by the Appellant in relation to this proceeding”.

24. On 28 July 2014, the AUF filed its appeal brief with the following requests for relief: “(i) Set aside the decision of the FIFA Appeal Committee dated 8 July2014, or Amend the decision of the FIFA Appeal Committee dated 8 July 2014 to significantly reduce the sanctions imposed upon Mr Luis Suárez therein;

(ii) Order FIFA to pay a contribution towards the legal costs and other related expenses of the AUF”.

25. On 31 July 2014, the CAS Court Office indicated that none of the Parties had objected to the nomination of Prof. Luigi Fumagalli as arbitrator in the present matter, and therefore confirmed such appointment.

26. On 31 July 2014, FIFA appointed Dr. Marco Balmelli as a member of the Panel.

27. On 4 August 2014, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties about the constitution of the Panel as follows: Mr Bernhard Welten, President, Prof. Luigi Fumagalli and Dr. Marco Balmelli, arbitrators.

28. On 6 August 2014, FIFA filed its answer, requesting the CAS: “1. To declare that the Club has no standing to sue;

2. To reject the AUF’s request to set aside the decision hereby appealed against; CAS 2014/A/3665, 3666 & 3667 7

Luis Suárez, FC Barcelona & AUF v. FIFA, award of 2 December 2014 (operative part of 14 August 2014)

3. To reject the Appellants’ request to set aside the decision hereby appealed against and to issue a new one;

4. To confirm in its entirety the decision hereby appealed against;

5. To order the Appellants to bear all costs incurred in connection with these proceedings and to cover all legal expenses of the Respondent in connection with these proceedings”.

29. On 8 August 2014, a hearing was held at the CAS headquarters in Lausanne. All the members of the Panel were present. At the outset of the hearing, the Parties declared that they had no objection with regard to the composition of the Panel.

30. The following persons attended the hearing: - Mr Luis Alberto Suárez Díaz in person, assisted by Mr Lucas Ferrer and Mr Alexis Schoeb, counsel; - Fútbol Club Barcelona, as represented by its secretary of the board, Mr Antoni Freixa and by its legal director, Ms Laura Anquera, assisted by Jordi López, counsel; - Associación Uruguaya de Fútbol, represented by its secretary general, Dr. Alejandro Balbi, and assisted by Mr David Casserly and Mr Daniel Cravo Souza, counsel, together with the research assistant Ms Melissa Knox and an interpreter, Mr Gabriel Cordova; - FIFA, as represented by Mr Marc Cavaliero, head of Disciplinary & Governance Department, Ms Christine Fariña and Mr José Rodriguez, legal counsel at the Disciplinary

& Governance Department.

31. During the hearing, the Parties made full oral submissions. No witness was called to testify; instead, all Parties asked questions from the Panel and the other Parties, and Mr Suarez rendered some declarations.

IV. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

32. The following outline of the Parties’ positions is illustrative only and does not necessarily comprise every contention put forward by the Parties. The Panel, indeed, has carefully considered, for the purposes of the legal analysis which follows, all the submissions made by the Parties, even if there is no specific reference to those submissions in the following summary. a) The Player and FC Barcelona

33. As the Player and the Club filed identical submissions, their position can be jointly summarized.

They assert that: i. the object of the appeal is not to request the complete annulment of the sanction imposed on the Player, since the Player recognizes that his conduct deserves to be punished; CAS 2014/A/3665, 3666 & 3667 8

Luis Suárez, FC Barcelona & AUF v. FIFA, award of 2 December 2014 (operative part of 14 August 2014) ii. however, the sanction imposed by the FIFA disciplinary bodies must be reduced, since “it is not adjusted to the FIFA DC and is contrary to basic disciplinary and punitive principles”. Four reasons can be identified for such reduction: - consideration of the Player’s acknowledgment and remorse as a mitigating factor for the sanction; - wrong application of sanctions by FIFA according to its own disciplinary code; - breach of basic disciplinary principles in the imposition of sanctions on the Player; - the clear disproportion and inadequacy of the sanction imposed. iii. as to the consideration of the Player’s acknowledgment and remorse as a mitigating factor for the sanction: - not all relevant factors were taken into account by the FIFA disciplinary bodies: especially, the Player’s acknowledgment of the facts and the remorse he expressed with full and absolute publicity were not considered as mitigating factors; - in fact, the Player apologized publicly and also privately to his opponent player Giorgio Chiellini for what he did; - in addition, the Match was a “high voltage” match, and within a few hours after the Match the Player and the AUF had to take position in front of the FIFA

Disciplinary Committee, which left them barely any time to reflect on the incident, at a time when the next crucial match was already waiting (1/8-final); - the Player is willing to undergo personalized medical treatment to improve his selfcontrol, and the Club is willing to support him to start the treatment sessions, which further shows the Player’s remorse; iv. as to the wrong application of sanctions by FIFA according to its own disciplinary code: - FIFA imposed a total of four distinct sanctions for one single act committed by the Player, applying two different articles of the FIFA DC; the FIFA authorities therefore wrongly applied the Disciplinary Code. Biting as an “assault” does imply a “violation of the principles of fair play” and therefore no additional sanction, based on a second provision (art. 57 FIFA DC), is possible;

• Art. 57 FIFA DC cannot be applied in the case at hand; only art. 48 FIFA DC shall be applied, which clearly defines the concrete sanction to be imposed (match ban

plus possibly a fine); this specific rule (lex specialis) of art. 48 FIFA DC shall prevail over the general rule (lex generalis) of art. 32 FIFA DC, which would enable the deciding body to combine sanctions, unless otherwise specified; v. as to the breach of basic disciplinary principles in the imposition of sanctions on the Player: - the Appealed Decision breaches the principle of “ne bis in idem”, as four distinct sanctions are imposed for one single act, embodied in two different articles. The purpose of art. 48 para. 1 lit. d) and art. 57 FIFA DC is the same (to sanction a CAS 2014/A/3665, 3666 & 3667 9 Luis Suárez, FC Barcelona & AUF v. FIFA, award of 2 December 2014 (operative part of 14 August 2014) football player for misconduct in the performance of his profession) and it is obvious that art. 48 para. 1 lit. d) incorporates within its scope a “violation of the

principles of fair play”; - the Appealed Decision further breaches the principle of legality “nulla poena sine lege certa” as it is impossible to anticipate the duration and scope of the sanctions that the Player could have expected in this case. In the case at hand the so-called “predictability test” is breached and shows that the Appealed Decision is arbitrary. The only sanction predictable ex ante to the Player is the suspension for a minimum of two matches plus a fine, therefore no further sanctions beside these should be applied; vi. as to the clear disproportion and inadequacy of the sanction imposed: - the sanctions imposed on the Player are completely inadequate and disproportionate, especially the stadium ban or the ban on taking part in any football-related activity, which are generally handed out when an administrative official, hooligans, club managers, referees or players have committed a crime, a match fixing offense, have violated the principle of contractual stability or some other non-football-related injury, i.e. have committed an offense occurring outside the pitch. In this case the Player committed an assault contending the ball and is not responsible for any offense occurring outside the pitch. Biting can be compared to other acts of misconduct, even if it is less frequent and more exceptional than others. The assault was committed during a game of the Uruguayan national team and therefore the sanction affecting the Club is incoherent; - the sanctions applied are disproportionate as the victim (Mr Chiellini) was able to continue to play without medical assistance and injury. In addition, if other assaults, committed by differed players in World Cup matches, such as Mauro Tassotti in 1994 and Zinedine Zidane in 2006, are considered, it can be noted that no such harsh sanctions (as those adopted for the Player) were imposed. Therefore, adding to the already heavy sanction of a 9-match ban and a fine, the four-month ban from participating in every football-related activity and from accessing stadium grounds

is obviously disproportionate. b) The AUF

34. The AUF assertions may be summarized as follows:

1. art. 77(a) of the FIFA DC was applied inappropriately by the FIFA disciplinary bodies, as the case in question does not concern serious infringements which have escaped the match officials attention. As a result, the Appealed Decision should be set aside in its entirety; ii. FIFA did not correctly apply the principles of sanctioning under Swiss law, it misapplied its own rules regarding recidivism and it misdirected itself in several other respects when considering an appropriate sanction. In fact, there must be a reduction in the 9 match CAS 2014/A/3665, 3666 & 3667 10

Luis Suárez, FC Barcelona & AUF v. FIFA, award of 2 December 2014 (operative part of 14 August 2014) ban: - to take into account that Swiss sanctioning principles will be violated by a sanction that favours punishment, while the principal objective of the sanction imposed on the Player should be to deter him from re-offending in the future. Such purpose is not best served by the imposition of a lengthy ban. On the other hand, AUF is in contact with psychiatrists in order to ensure that the Player’s treatment will continue uninterrupted whenever he is on international duty with the AUF; the AUF is supporting an educational program entitled “Campaign against violence in sport 2014”, in which the Player will be able to play the leading role; - to take into consideration the incorrect minimum sanction starting point. In fact, the Player’s conduct clearly falls under art. 48 para. 1 lit. d) FIFA DC and therefore the sanction is a two-match ban; biting cannot lead to a minimum six-match ban pursuant to art. 48 para. 1 lit. e) FIFA DC; - to take into consideration the illegitimate finding of recidivism. The Appealed Decision considered the Player’s recidivism as an aggravating factor. However, only

prior infringements occurring in matches organized by FIFA can be taken into account to decide whether a player is a recidivist, on the basis of art. 40 FIFA DC. The interpretation of art. 40 FIFA DC, in fact, has to be made in a narrow way, while, in the case at hand, the FIFA bodies applied art. 40 FIFA DC arbitrarily, as the previous events which had involved the Player had occurred in national competitions. It is the first time FIFA has taken into account incidents at national levels in the context of disciplinary proceedings opened against players during FIFA competitions; - to take into account the mitigating factor of remorse, that was incorrectly not considered by the FIFA Appeal Committee. Based on CAS jurisprudence, the fact that a party apologises and recognises his mistake must be taken into account for the purposes of sanctioning. The Player made a public and a separate private apology to Mr Chiellini; - to take into consideration the lack of damage or consequence for Mr Chiellini, who was able to keep playing after the incident ; - to take into account the fact that the FIFA Appeal Committee did not consider the effect of the sanction on third parties, such as the national team of AUF and the Club; - to ensure the proportionality of the sanction in practical terms. Indeed, the ninematch ban is very long and will prevent the Player’s participation in the 2015 Copa America in Chile as well as in the first qualification games of the preliminary competition of the FIFA World Cup 2018. A reduction of the suspension to four matches would in any case imply the loss for the Player of the possibility to play at the Copa America in 2015. In addition, the sanctions imposed on the Player appear clearly disproportionate, if compared to the cases of Tassotti (1994 - eight-match ban), Leonardo (1994 - four-match ban), Zidane (2006 - three-match ban, plus CAS 2014/A/3665, 3666 & 3667 11

Luis Suárez, FC Barcelona & AUF v. FIFA, award of 2 December 2014 (operative part of 14 August 2014) CHF 7,500 fine), and Song (2014 - three-match ban, and CHF 20,000 fine). - to take into account the fact that the Player did not gain anything from the infringement he committed (no goal scored), but suffered personal difficulties, being blamed by the Uruguayan population, had worldwide negative publicity, with sponsors dropping him, and especially had his family life publicly exposed in an embarrassing and ashaming way; iii. the imposed stadium ban and the ban on all football-related activity are also inappropriate and should be set aside. c) FIFA

35. The Respondent’s assertions may be summarized as follows:

1. FC Barcelona has no standing to sue, as the Club was not part of the proceedings in front of the FIFA Disciplinary or FIFA Appeal Committee, and it has no legally protected interests. In addition, the Club did not request to join or intervene in these proceedings. In any case, all consequences of the Appealed Decision are directed only to the Player himself and any possible claim the Club may have is an indirect consequence of the sanction imposed on the Player;
2. the AUF did not raise the argument of a wrong application of art. 77 FIFA DC in front of the FIFA bodies, and cannot raise it before the CAS, since, in view of the new wording of art. R57 of the Code, the CAS power of review is limited by the object of the dispute that was before the previous instance. In any case, the contention of the AUF that the match officials witnessed the incident under investigation, and therefore

that art. 77 lit. a) FIFA DC is not applicable, is wrong: the match officia