ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΗ: Το έγγραφο 30 απλήρωτων παικτών προς τη FIFA

 Τριάντα ποδοσφαιριστές προσέφυγαν κατά της ΕΠΟ στη FIFA και ζητούν να επιβληθούν κυρώσεις στην ελληνική Ομοσπονδία για κατάφωρη παραβίαση κανονισμών.

Οι "Δικογραφίες" παρουσιάζουν το 44σελιδο έγγραφο που εστάλη στην Παγκόσμια Ποδοσφαιρική Ομοσπονδία και διεθνοποιεί το σκάνδαλο των απλήρωτων ποδοσφαιριστών. 

FIFA DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE

1. Diogo Rodrigues Siston 2. Ricardo Matias Veron 3. Ricardo William

Faty 4. Pele Frimpong 5. Vedran Muratovic 6. Marcelo Damiano 7.

Pantelis Kafes 8. Nikolaos Arampatzis 9. Alexandros Perogamvrakis

10. Lampros Kefaloukos 11. Efthimios Koulocheris 12. Grigorios

Papazacharias 13. Emmanouil Papasterianos 14. Michail Kyrgias 15.

Stylianos Tsoukanis 16. Kostas Kapetanos 17. Minas Iosipou 18.

Efstathios Rokas 19. Athanasios Pindonis 20. Georgios Lampropoulos

21. Fotios Papanikolaou 22. Miltiadis Mitropoulos 23. Andreas Chysa

24. Georgios Souloganis 25. Ioannis Chloros 26. Dimitrios Geladaris

27. Theodoros Pakaltsis 28. Pier Kalagkanis 29. Christos Bourbos 30.

Nikolaos Galas

(Complainants)

v

HELLENIC FOOTBALL FEDERATION

(Respondent)

Statement of Complaint

In the memory of Nikos Tsoumanis...

- 2 -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. PARTIES ........................................................................................................................................- 3 -

II. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.........................................................................................................- 5 -

III. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................- 6 -

IV. PROCEDURAL ISSUES..............................................................................................................- 8 -

A. The Jurisdiction of FIFA Disciplinary Committee..........................................................- 8 -

B. The Applicable Law............................................................................................................. - 13 -

V. COMPLAINANT’S SUBMISSIONS ......................................................................................... - 14 -

A. The Greek overview of sporting succession. The disregard of FIFA Regulations by

the Hellenic Football Federation ..................................................................................... - 14 -

B. The core principle of uniformity and equal treatment within the football family- 27 -

VI. CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... - 40 -

VII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF........................................................................................................... - 42 -

- 3 -

I. PARTIES

1. The Complainants in these proceedings are (former) professional football players of

different nationalities who are called to face the very same situation regarding the (legal)

treatment of sporting succession in Greece and the complete disregard of FIFA regulatory

framework by the Hellenic Football Federation. In details, all of the Complainants used to

play in different Greek football clubs while the latter in mala fide decided (in variant sporting

seasons) to run into bankruptcy regime and establish a “new football club” for to circumvent

their financial liabilities. As such, the Complainants have formed an unofficial union in order

to seek on legal protection and pursuit the retrieve of their respective credits collectively.

They have decided to establish such an “unofficial” union (as their ultimate option) given

that they have not enjoyed any substantial legal aid from the Professional Football Players’

Association of Greece (PSAP). On the contrary, the latter has remained quite passive and

inactive during the past decade while the Greek clubs (with the “blessings” of HFF) have

adopted and abused such a pattern in order to circumvent their financial obligations.

Therefore, PSAP has clearly contributed (even slightly and indirectly) to the deterioration

of “sporting succession” situation in Greece and the complete violation of players’ rights

and interests by the respective Greek football clubs.

2. The present Complaint is lodged in the memory of Nikos Tsoumanis, a former

colleague and teammate of some of us, who committed suicide on 5th of October

2021 in the light of his excessive financial difficulties. Just for the records, Mr.

Tsoumanis was also facing similar difficulties as the football club he used to play for, was

relegated into amateur divisions and created a new Football Société Anonyme in order to

circumvent the payment of his financial liabilities. Following his suicide, the owner and

president of PAE Aris Thessalonikis (Mr. Theodoros Karypidis) decided to pay (as an

exception) the monies owned to the family of the player. (Exhibit 1)

3. The Respondent in these proceedings is the Hellenic Football Federation, a Member

Association of FIFA.

- 4 -

4. All the correspondence for the Complainants in connection with these proceedings shall

be directed to their legal representatives (for whom proof of representation is provided as

(Exhibit 2) at the following address:

Mr. Kosmas Mitsios

Str. Gerontos Paisiou 3, P.B. 305, Thessaloniki,Greece

Email: kosmasmitsios@outlook.com.gr

Georgios Panagopoulos

Str. Favierou 47, Athens, Greece

Email: panagopoulosathlos@gmail.com

5. The Respondent’s contacts details are the following:

Address: Goudi Park, Post Box 14161, Postal Code 11510, Athens, Greece

Emails: info@epo.gr

- 5 -

II. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AT of HFF : Arbitral Tribunal of Hellenic Football Federation

CAS : Court of Arbitration for Sports, based in Lausanne, Switzerland

ECJ : European Court of Justice

FIFA : Fédération Internationale de Football Association

FIFA DC : FIFA Disciplinary Code

FIFA DisCo : FIFA Disciplinary Committee

FIFPro : Fédération Internationale des Associations de Footballeurs Professionnels

FSA : Football Société Anonyme

HFF : Hellenic Football Federation

NDRC : National Dispute Resolution Chamber

PAE : Greek acronym for the term “Football Société Anonyme”

- 6 -

III. INTRODUCTION

6. The present Official Complaint is related to the legal concept of sporting succession

between two different legal entities, and the consideration of the newly established

Football Société Anonyme as a non-compliant party, regarding credits incurred by the

precedent FSA, under the scope of Article 15 FIFA DC. In specific, it serves as an

occasion to demonstrate the persistent and deliberate infringement of FIFA

Regulations and the principles established therein by HFF regarding disputes of

sporting succession within the national legal framework. It is going to be proved in

detail that HFF has enacted each and every measure possible in order to protect the

interests of the respective football clubs and discourage the relevant creditors/football

players to pursuit the retrieve of their credits.

7. This situation has become more and more common during the financial crisis. The list of

clubs that disappear with a “phoenix bird” and miraculously revive from their ashes under

the form of a new legal entity is excessive, and the temptation to use these mechanisms

in order to circumvent the incurred financial liabilities via the created confusion and fraud,

may sometimes be too appealing for clubs under high financial stress.

8. Especially during the past decade, numerous Greek football clubs have followed the

very same legal route in order to circumvent the payment of their credits1 (Exhibit

3). In particular, they pursue the relegation to amateur divisions with the intention of setting

the respective Football Société Anonyme under bankruptcy regime, establish a new

company (football société anonyme) and as such get rid of their financial liabilities. The

HFF has been consistently acting quite sympathetically towards this practice, either by

1 Exhibit 3 – Article dated on 3 July 2019. A survey is enclosed regarding the Greek Football and Basketball

clubs which had opted for the legal route of “1. relegation – 2. (and/or) establishment of a new Société

Anonyme with a different Tax Identification Number – 3. circumvention of credits”. The table attached into

the article contains details regarding the debts of the clubs towards the Greek Tax and Insurance Authorities

(debts to players are not included but an approximate calculation may be deduced).

For the convenience of your respectful Commitee, the term “PAE” included into the article is the Greek

translation of the acronym “Football Société Anonyme”. On the same note, the term “KAE” corresponds to

the acronym “Basketball Société Anonyme”.

- 7 -

establishing a regulatory framework favourably inclined in the interests of the clubs orby

adopting legal schemes and patters in order to discourage players – creditors to seek on

legal protection against the respective sporting successor.

9. As such, in the present Complaint, one can read the detailed and complete disregard of

FIFA Regulations and the principles established therein by the HFF. It will be widely

demonstrated throughout the Complaint’s corpus that the HFF has been deliberately and

constantly violating the relevant regulatory framework of FIFA and it is completely

prejudiced in favour of Greek football clubs. In specific, the Complainants will provide

sufficient evidence that it has been made almost impossible for a player to recover his

credit by the respective sporting successor within the national legal framework of Greece,

regardless of his negligence towards the respective dispute and the peculiarities of each

case. The breach of FIFA’s regulatory framework by the HFF is so brutal and severe that

your respectful Committee shall immediately initiate a proper investigation in order to

summon the Member Association to abstain from any further violation and impose the

relevant sanctions in accordance with FIFA DC.

10. The supra obscure situation has been clearly outlined recently during the procedures

regarding the FIFA/FIFPro Fund. In specific, Greece has been identified beyond doubt

as the “world champion of the debts” towards football players who could not

retrieve their credits by the respective “non-existing” football club. Pursuant to the

data released by FIFPro regarding the applications effectively made to the Fund, Greece

is the unchallenged champion of the procedure, given that more than double applications

have been made in relation to Greek football clubs comparing to the second respective

jurisdiction. Nonetheless, we feel obliged to underline that the supra numbers and

figures constitute only the tip of the iceberg; the real situation is by far worse and

harder for the respective football players in Greece. (Exhibit 4)

11. In addition, it will remain evident that FIFA DisCo constitutes the ultimate solution for

a player-creditor in order to recover his credit by the (Greek) sporting successor of

the non-compliant party. On that respect, a permanent legal pattern has been adopted

- 8 -

by HFF on domestic level in order for the Greek Football Clubs circumvent the payments

of their respective credits and consequently disregard FIFA Regulatory Framework.

12. In this regard, it is going to be proved that there is an excessive unequal treatment

between the players-creditors who seek on legal protection before the judicial

bodies of FIFA and those who opt for (or those who are obliged to follow) the

national regulatory framework. In specific, the following situation may be spotted: certain

teammates who used to share the field and locker rooms of the very same football club on

the very same season are treated quite differently depending on the judicial body they have

filed the relevant claim to.

IV. PROCEDURAL ISSUES

A. The Jurisdiction of FIFA Disciplinary Committee

13. International sporting federations legislate and create their own general norms, and as

such they operate a discrete independent regulatory regime globally. In this sense, they

are a legally plural regime independent of nation states. In this regard, the international

football federation “FIFA” is the highest regulatory and supervisory authority

worldwide2, and as such it enjoys a “large autonomy” in carrying out its regulatory

functions and in applying its rules governing the “social life” of the association and

its relations towards its members3.

14. In order to protect the core principle of uniformity within football family, Member

Associations shall comply with the Regulatory Framework of FIFA. Such principle is

established in several provisions of FIFA Statutes, in particular Articles 11, par. 4 (a), and

14, point (a), of the FIFA Statutes:

2 CAS 98/200 AEK Athenes and SK Slavia Prague / Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), award

of 20 August 1999, par. 14

3 CAS 2011/A/2426 Amos Adamu v. FIFA, award of 24 February 2012, par. 92, ATF 134 III 193, 199 par.

4.3

- 9 -

“4. The association’s legally valid statutes shall be enclosed with the application for

membership and shall contain the following mandatory provisions:

(a) always to comply with the Statutes, regulations and decisions of FIFA and of the

relevant confederation;”

“Member associations have the following obligations:

(a) to comply fully with the Statutes, regulations, directives and decisions of FIFA

bodies at any time as well as the decisions of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)

passed on appeal on the basis of art. 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes;”(Emphasis added)

15. Furthermore, in order to secure and protect the core principle of uniformity, FIFA

established a regulatory framework in order to supervise the implementation of this

principle and oblige the member in breach to comply with in case of violation. In specific,

Article 27 par. 6 of FIFA Disciplinary Code:

“The FIFA judicial bodies reserve the right to investigate, prosecute and sanction

serious infringements within the scope of application of this Code that fall under the

jurisdiction of confederations, associations or other sports organizations if deemed

appropriate in a specific case and if the confederation, association or other sports

organization fails to prosecute serious infringements within three months from the

infringement becoming known to the Disciplinary Committee.”(Emphasis added)

16. According to Article 2 par. 2 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code:

“This Code also applies to any breach of FIFA’s statutory objectives as well as of any FIFA

rule that does not fall under the jurisdiction of any other FIFA body.”(Emphasis added)

17. The core principle of uniformity in football family, has been outlined also by CAS’

jurisprudence as a cornerstone in the development and establishment of lex sportiva.

Before the creation of CAS, the rights and obligations of athletes and officials were ill-

defined and were enforceable – if at all – only through costly and lengthy litigation in

- 10 -

national courts or in arbitration before tribunals staffed by the same sports federations

whose actions the tribunals were asked to judge! Legal claims were thus difficult to frame,

difficult to pursue and, for political outsiders, difficult to win.4 On that respect, CAS has

adopted an autonomist approach to the law applicable in disputes related to the

enforcement by FIFA’s internal bodies of the FIFA Regulations. This approach is justified

in the literature by the need to foster a uniform approach to the applicable law in order to

ensure that all football players and clubs worldwide are faced with the same rights and

obligations and that disputes be resolved in a similar way.5

18. Moreover, FIFA DisCo retains the principal competence to resolve disputes regarding non-

compliant parties as to the enforcement of a monetary decision, as well as to enforce it

against the sporting successor of the relevant non-compliant party. This important

contemporary concept created by CAS jurisprudence, is now embedded in FIFA DC

(edition 2019). The reason that FIFA introduced Article 15 par. 4 FIFA DC was to improve

legal certainty by formalizing in its own regulations the longstanding CAS jurisprudence

acknowledging the existence of sporting succession as a specific legal figure of “football”

sports law. In this sense, Article 15 par.4 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code establishes:

“The sporting successor of a non-compliant party shall also be considered a non-compliant

party and thus subject to the obligations under this provision. Criteria to assess whether

4 Robert C.R. Siekmann, Janwillem Soek (2012) “Lex Sportiva. What is Sports Law?”, Asser International

Sports Law Series, the Hague, p.108

5Zimmerman M (2015) “Vertragsstabilität im internationalen Fussball”. Dike Verlag, Zürich/St. Gallen , p.

181: “Damit kann sichergestellt werden, dass für alle Teilnehmer im internationalen Fussball weltweit die

gleichen Voraussetzungen gelten und dass sämtliche sich daraus ergebenden Streitigkeiten nach den

gleichen Rechtsregeln beurteilt werden.’ Similarly, in TAS 2005/A/983 and 984 Club Atlético Peñarol c.

Carlos Heber Bueno Suarez, Cristian Gabriel Rodriguez Barrotti & Paris Saint-Germain [2006], para 24: ‘La

Formation arbitrale considère à cet égard que le sport est par nature un phénomène transcendant les

frontières. Il est non seule- ment souhaitable, mais indispensable que les règles régissant le sport au niveau

international aient un caractère uniforme et largement cohérent dans le monde entier. Pour en assurer un

respect au niveau mondial, une telle réglementation ne doit pas être appliquée différemment d'un pays à

l’autre, notamment en raison d’interférences entre droit étatique et réglementation sportive. Le principe de

l’application universelle des règles de la FIFA—ou de toute autre fédération interna- tionale—répond à des

exigences de rationalité, de sécurité et de prévisibilité juridique. Tous les membres de la famille mondiale

du football sont ainsi soumis aux mêmes règles, qui sont pub- liées. L’uniformité qui en résulte tend à assurer

l’égalité de traitement entre tous les destinataires de ces normes, quel que soit le pays où ils se trouvent.”.

- 11 -

an entity is to be considered as the sporting successor of another entity are, among others,

its headquarters, name, legal form, team colours, players, shareholders or stakeholders or

ownership and the category of competition concerned.”.(Emphasis added)

19. Furthermore, FIFA recognizes that Member Associations retain a certain degree of

autonomy regarding their regulatory framework, given that they shall also comply with the

relevant National Legal Order. Hence, Member Associations are permitted to establish

Domestic Judicial Bodies within their Framework, in order to resolve disputes that may

arise within their Regulatory Territory.

20. Nevertheless, even in this kind of disputes (i.e. disputes including sporting succession)

FIFA Regulations and the principles established therein shall be respected and

implemented, regardless of the particularities of every respective jurisdiction. Hence,

neither the Member Association nor the respective Domestic Judicial Bodies may disregard

the abovementioned principles. In other words, FIFA outlines the limits within which every

relevant dispute shall be adjudicated, in order not to have different decision upon similar

cases.

21. On that respect, FIFA DisCo is competent to supervise whether the relevant

regulations and the principles established therein are respected and order the

Member Association in breach to rectify the infringement. On this context, the core

principle of uniformity is the ratio of Article 15 par. 5 FIFA DC, which stipulates the following:

“Any financial or non-financial decision that has been pronounced against a club by a court

of arbitration within the relevant association or national dispute resolution chamber

(NDRC), both duly recognized by FIFA, shall be enforced by the association of the

deciding body that has pronounced the decision in accordance with the principles

established in this article and in compliance with the applicable disciplinary regulations.”

(Emphasis added)

- 12 -

22. On the same note, it has been outlined by CAS jurisprudence6 that, under Swiss law, the

interpretation of the statutes and rules of a Swiss sports association (such as FIFA) must

be objective and always to start with the wording of the rule, which falls to by interpreted.

The [respective] adjudicating body, shall consider the meaning of the rule looking at the

language used and the appropriate grammar and syntax. In its search, the adjudicating

body has further to identify the intentions (objectively construed) of the association which

drafted the rule, and such body may also take account of any relevant historical

background which illuminated its derivations, as well as the entirely regulatory context in

which the particular rule is located7.

23. In the light of these remarks, the intention of FIFA to regulate and supervise the

minimum standards of uniformity regarding sporting succession disputes,

regardless the judicial body which shall adjudicate upon each case, is clearly

depicted in the wording of Article 15 par. 5 FIFA DC (“decision in accordance with

the principles established in this article”).

24. Ultimately, Article 52 par.1 FIFA DC stipulates that “Proceedings are opened by the

secretariat of the Disciplinary Committee: (...) h) ex officio”. Moreover, as per par. 2 “any

person or body may report conduct that he or it considers incompatible with the regulations

of FIFA to the FIFA judicial bodies. Such complaint shall be made in writing”.

25. The Complainants feel also obliged to mention that Mr. Diogo Siston (Ref. No. FDD-

8746) and Mr. Ricardo William Faty (Ref. No. FDD8368) have already filled relevant

claims before FIFA DisCo pursuing the retrieve of their credits against the respective

Greek sporting successor. They have also denounced the permanent infringement of

the FIFA Regulatory Framework by the HFF. Nonetheless, given that both of them

requested the enforcement of a NDRC Decision against the sporting successor, FIFA

6 CAS 2012/A/2817 Fenerbahçe Spor Kulübüv. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) &

Roberto Carlos Da Silva Rocha, award of 21 June 2013, par, 107

7 CAS 2008/A/1673; CAS 2009/A/1810; CAS 2009/A/1811; CAS 2010/A/2071; CAS 2011/A/2563; see also

ATF 87 II 95 consid. 3; ATF 114 II 193, p. 197, consid. 5.a; decision of the Swiss Federal Tribunal of 3 May

2005, 7B.10/2005, consid. 2.3; decision of the Swiss Federal Tribunal of 25 February 2003, consid. 3.2; and

ZEN-RUFFINEN P., Droit du Sport, 2002, par. 168, p. 63

- 13 -

DisCo forwarded both of the Claims to the HFF for action and consideration. Therefore,

the supra enclosed denouncement against HFF for the severe infringement of FIFA

Regulations did not enjoy any assessment by your respectful Committee. Moreover, it shall

be mentioned that more than 4 months have already elapsed since the aforementioned

Claims were forwarded by FIFA DisCo to the HFF (29 July 2021 & 7 June 2021

respectively); nevertheless, as you may assume HFF did not take any action regarding the

supra claims and of course no measure have been initiated in order to abstain from further

infringement of FIFA’s Regulatory framework. As such, on supplementary basis with the

so far argumentation, the Complainants refer also to Article 27 par. 6 FIFA DC which

stipulates that “The FIFA judicial bodies reserve the right to investigate, prosecute and

sanction serious infringements within the scope of application of this Code that fall under

the jurisdiction of confederations, associations or other sports organizations if deemed

appropriate in a specific case and if the confederations, associations or other sports

organizations fails to prosecute serious infringements within three months from the

infringement becoming known to the Disciplinary Committee”. (Exhibit 16)8.

26. In light of the above, it is clear that FIFA Disciplinary Committee is competent to hear the

present complaint. In addition, due to the severe infringement and disregard of FIFA

Regulatory Framework by HFF regarding sporting succession, your respectful Committee

shall immediately conduct a survey regarding the current situation in Greece and proceed

to the imposition of sanctions in accordance with FIFA DC against the Member Association

in breach. As such, following the long-standing and aggressive infringement conducted by

HFF, measures shall be taken the soonest possible in order the situation not to be

worsened even more! The time for action is now given that the situation has been made

intolerable!

B. The Applicable Law

27. According to Article 5 FIFA DC:

8 As Exhibit 16, we attach hereinunder the relevant claims lodged by Mr. Diogo Siston and Mr. Ricardo

William Faty before FIFA DisCo as well as the respective replies of the latter stipulating that the claims are

going to be forwarded to HFF for consideration and action.

- 14 -

“The FIFA judicial bodies base their decisions:

a) primarily, on the FIFA Statutes as well as FIFA’s regulations, circulars, directives and

decisions, and the Laws of the Game; and

b) subsidiarily, on Swiss law and any other law that the competent judicial body deems

applicable.”

28. On a secondary basis, the Greek National Legislation shall be taken into consideration,

not exclusively in order to constitute the legal basis according to which FIFA DisCo shall

adjudicate, but mainly to depict and outline the structure of Greek football and the

bankruptcy proceedings within the national legal regime, as well as the rights and

obligations of the parties included therein. In this regard, an explicit

mention and

interpretation of the relevant national legislation is going to be made below.

V. COMPLAINANT’S SUBMISSIONS

A. The Greek overview of sporting succession. The disregard of FIFA Regulations by the

Hellenic Football Federation

29. The present section will be dedicated to a brief presentation of the national legislation

regarding sporting succession in Greece, in which the Complainants will proceed to explain

in detail that the HFF has blatantly disregarded FIFA Regulations and the principles

established therein. Furthermore, the Complainants will also demonstrate that a player-

creditor retains almost no chance of recovering his credit on national level by the sporting

successor of the respective precedent FSA.

30. Primarily, it shall be mentioned that the legal issues at stake (e.g., sporting succession

between two different legal entities) are regulated within the Greek regulatory framework

- 15 -

by Article 111 of the Sport Act (Law Nr. 2725/1999) and Articles 4 and 5 of Annex 1 of the

HFF’s Regulations on Football Matches (Exhibit 5).

a. The disregard of FIFA Regulations and the principles established therein, on the

regulatory framework of HFF

i. As to the structure of Greek football clubs and the sporting succession

31. As a matter of priority, sports activities in Greece, are mainly organized by Amateur

Sports Clubs, which are affiliated with the relevant National Sports Association. As

a rule of thumb, in case a national professional division is organized for a specific sport, a

Sports Société Anonyme shall be established by the respective Sports Club, in order to

participate into the aforementioned professional division.

32. Football is not an exception. Football activity is also organized by amateur Football Clubs,

within the National Legal Framework of Greece. These clubs may participate in the

amateur divisions of the organized Greek Football. In case a Football Club achieves the

promotion to the professional divisions, the same rule applies. A new Football Société

Anonyme shall be established by the Football Club in order to participate into the

professional divisions. This new FSA shall acquire de jure the same (or identical) brand

name, emblem, colors, stadium (etc) as the founding Football Club. In addition, the latter

is obliged to participate up to of 10% in the capital share of the newly established FSA.

33. In addition, all of the assets possessed by the amateur Football Club (such as the stadium,

the training fields etc.), remain in the possession and ownership of the Football Club, even

after the establishment of the FSA. They are solely leased to the latter in order to be

exploited for its necessities regarding the participation to the professional divisions.

34. Conversely, in case the Football Société Anonyme is relegated back to amateur divisions,

the same legal route is followed vice versa. In particular, the FSA is set de jure under

bankruptcy regime and mandatory liquidation proceedings are automatically initiated.

Then, the amateur Football Club “replaces” the FSA as to the participation in the amateur

divisions.

- 16 -

35. Likewise, in case of Football Club’s (re)promotion into a professional division, a new

Football Société Anonyme shall be established, acquiring again the same (or identical)

emblem, stadium etc. as the founding amateur Football Club (and subsequently as the

precedent FSA). Consequently, the founding amateur Football Club shall participate up to

10% in the capital share of the newly established FSA and (re)acquire company status in

order to participate again in the professional divisions.

36. In the light of that, it has been made clear that the newly established FSA is de jure and

beyond doubt the sporting successor of the precedent FSA.

ii. The creditor is entitled to receive only 50% of his credit by the sporting

successor.

37. According to the relevant article of the Sport Act, the newly established FSA is beyond

doubt considered as the sporting successor of the demoted one. In this regard, it is dictated

de jure, that the newly established Football Société Anonyme shall undertake

automatically, ex officio and in full 50% of the sports-related financial liabilities

incurred by the precedent FSA (outstanding credits to football players, coaching

and technical staff, other football clubs, HFF etc). In other words, the newly FSA

automatically undertakes, since the day of its establishment, 50% of the financial

liabilities incurred by the precedent FSA.

38. As to the rest 50% of the financial liabilities, it is stipulated that the creditor shall exhaust

every legal remedy available against the precedent FSA, before filing claims and seek on

legal protection against the newly established FSA, regarding the recovery of his credit.

However, the exhaustion of legal remedies is interpreted lato sensu by the domestic judicial

bodies, and as such the creditor shall exhaust every single remedy available before pursuit

the recovery of his credit against the sporing successor. In specific, he shall initiate, inter

alia, legal remedies even against the CEO or the owner of the precedent FSA in order to

demonstrate the impossibility to recover his credit.

39. In the light of that, it shall be made clear that even if a newly established FSA is identified

as the sporting successor of a demoted FSA and subsequently it is ordered to undertake

- 17 -

the financial liabilities incurred by the respective precedent FSA, even then the creditor

would be entitled to practically retrieve only 50% of the relevant credit!

iii. A brief timeline regarding the legislative approach of sporting succession

in Greece. The time barrier of the season 2016-2017.

40. The present Regulatory Framework regarding sporting successors in Greece (Sport Act/

Law nr. 2725 of 1999) underwent a major amendment in 2016. In particular, for the first

time within the National Legal Framework, it was inserted the term of “sporting successor”

as to the football clubs and the relevant procedures were regulated.

41. In light of the above, until the abovementioned amendment in 2016 there was a

complete lack of legal tools and remedies available for the creditor-player to seek

on legal protection against the sporting successor of the respective club. The

creditor-player could only initiate legal remedies against the precedent (demoted) FSA in

order to recover his credit – which were extremely hard to succeed (if not impossible).

42. Nevertheless, the amendment of 2016 was not provided with retroactive effect; on

the contrary: it was stipulated that it would create effects from the end of the

sporting season 2016-2017 and on. In this regard, it was regulated that creditors-players

shall initiate legal remedies against the sporting successor of the precedent FSA

exclusively in case the latter has been relegated (and consequently the sporting successor

is established) from the season 2016-2017 and on. Therefore, if the demoted FSA is

relegated (and consequently the sporting successor is established) on a season prior to

2016-2017, then the creditor is strictly prohibited to initiate legal remedies against the newly

established FSA and pursuit the retrieve of his respective credit by the sporting successor.

As such, the creditor-player may only seek on legal protection against the precedent FSA

via ineffective legal remedies, without any concrete possibility to recover his credit.

iv. The turning point of January 2020. The landmark case of Diogo Siston v.

PAE Aris Thessaloniki before FIFA DisCo (decision nr. 150025

PST/November 2019) and its aftermaths.

- 18 -

43. January 2020 was a turning point regarding the approach of the sporting successor’s

concept within the National Legal Framework. The landmark case of Diogo Siston v. PAE

Aris Thessaloniki before FIFA DisCo played a major role in this regard.

44. The main points of that decision were the following:

(i) the precedent FSA was demoted and set under bankruptcy regime before the

season 2016-2017.

(ii) The sporting successor of the precedent FSA was established also before the

season 2016-2017.

(iii) The credit in relation to that dispute was also incurred before the aforementioned

season.

(iv) In the light of that, the time barrier of 2016-2017 had to be set aside; otherwise, a

severe unequal treatment would have been consisted among the creditors-players.

45. Nonetheless, both the HFF and the Greek Club ignored the decision rendered by FIFA

DisCo. The Greek Club did not proceed to the payment of the relevant amount within the

stipulated deadline, which triggered the transfer ban being imposed.

46. Regardless of the transfer ban, during the registration period of January 2020 PAE Aris

Thessaloniki acquired on loan from Olympiacos Piraeus FC the player Fiorin Durmishaij,

with the permission granted by the HFF.

47. Following the failure to comply with the decision rendered by FIFA DisCo, the latter initiated

disciplinary proceedings against the Greek football club (PAE Aris Thessaloniki) and HFF

respectively. On that note, both of them argued that the national legislation shall prevail

and consequently the decision of FIFA DisCo shall be set aside! As it is clearly in your

knowledge, PAE Aris Thessaloniki was sanctioned with a transfer ban for two consecutive

transfer windows, and a fine of EUR 500.000 was imposed to HFF for their failure to comply

with the decision rendered by FIFA DisCo9.

9 FIFA Disciplinary Committee Decision 200194 regarding the case of PAE Aris Thessaloniki passed on 28

April 2020 (you may spot the link to the following page’s footnote)

- 19 -

48. On the aftermaths of the abovementioned cases, HFF was obliged to change (at least

theoretically) the approach regarding sporting succession. In particular, on 31 January

2020 the HFF uploaded, for the very first time, an Official Announcement (Exhibit 6) in its

website to invite every creditor-player that is entitled to be remunerated by a demoted (and

under bankruptcy) FSA to declare his credit to HFF and initiate legal remedies against the

respective sporting successor in order to retrieve his credit.

49. On 14 January 2021, a similar Official Announcement (Exhibit 7) was uploaded on the

website of HFF with a slight amendment in relation to the previous one. In the light of the

several claims which had been already filed before the AT of HFF, the Licensing Committee

of HFF deemed necessary to explicitly outline that the time barrier of the season 2016-

2017 was still valid despite the supra FIFA DisCo decision. The main ratio for this slight

amendment was the intention of HFF to discourage players-creditors to furtherly initiate

legal remedies against the respective sporting successors within the national legal

framework.

50. The aforementioned decision of FIFA DisCo was enthusiastically greeted by dozens of

players-creditors who used to face (and are still facing) similar obstacles as Diogo Siston.

As a consequence, plenty of similar claims were filed during the following months before

the competent Arbitral Tribunal of HFF. Following the rendered decision of FIFA DisCo,

numerous creditors-players retained the certain belief that the AT of HFF would finally

abide by the jurisprudence of FIFA’s judicial body and FIFA Regulations.

v. Brief summary of the disregard of FIFA Regulations on the HFF’s

regulatory framework

https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/dc-200194-28-04-2020-club-

aris.pdf?cloudid=hs0t6hhdizepksypdz96 ;

FIFA Disciplinary Committee Decision 200193 regarding the case of Hellenic Football Federation passed

on 28 April 2020 https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/dc-200193-28-04-2020-hellenic-football-

federation.pdf?cloudid=yaokavrtw8axugo3rh1l.

- 20 -

51. It has already been proved that the HFF completely and beyond doubt disregarded the

FIFA Regulations and the principles established therein, as to the legal issue of sporting

succession.

52. In order to sum up, the following mentions - conclusions shall be made, regarding the

national regulatory framework as to sporting succession:

(i) Until 2016, it was absolutely impossible for a player - creditor to initiate legal

remedies against the sporting successor, regarding debts incurred by the respective

precedent FSA. There used to be a complete lack of the relevant legal tools within

the national regulatory framework, in order a player – creditor legally pursuit the

recovery of his credit by the sporting successor. As such, it was dictated that the

players – creditors were exclusively limited to initiate (probably) ineffective legal

remedies against the demoted FSAs.

(ii) Since the end of the sporting season 2016-2017 and on, the Sports Act

amendment did not drastically change the situation. Sporting succession was

inserted in the national legal framework, but with an excessively limited range of

implementation. The players – creditors could initiate legal remedies against the

sporting successor of the respective precedent FSA, only in case the later was

relegated (and consequently the new FSA was established) from the end of the

sporting season 2016-2017 and on10. In regard to the rest of the cases prior to the

sporting season 2016-2017, the players – creditors were strictly prohibited to initiate

legal remedies against the respective sporting successor!

(iii) Since January 2020, because of the FIFA DisCo decision between Diogo Siston

and PAE Aris Thessaloniki the situation changed, at least theoretically. HFF invited

10The sporting season 2016-2017 was not randomly selected to constitute the time-barrier regarding

sporting succession disputes in Greece. The major Greek football clubs which opted for the legal route

of “relegation into amateur divisions – bankruptcy proceedings for the demoted FSA – establishment of a

new FSA” in order to circumvent the payments of the financial liabilities incurred, did take this initiative prior

to the sporting season of 2016-2017. For example, AEK Athens, Aris Thessaloniki, AEL Larissa, OFI Crete

had been relegated and established new FSAs prior to the Sports Act’s amendment in 2016. As such, it may

be argued that the players- creditors were prohibited to initiate legal remedies against sporting successors

prior to the time barrier of 2016-2017 in order for these major clubs (inter alia) to be protected and the

circumvention of the payments to be constitutionally certified.

- 21 -

every player-creditor to declare his credit and initiate legal remedies against the

newly established FSAs. Nevertheless, the change of the HFF’s approach towards

the sporting succession issue was mainly fictitious and in bad faith.

(iv) As a last point, it shall be mentioned that on every occasion, the sporting successor

was ordered to remunerate the respective player – creditor only for the 50% of the

relevant credit, as per the national legislation.

b. The disregard of FIFA Regulations and the principles established therein, on the

practical approach of HFF to the legal concept of sporting succession

53. Following the decision of FIFA DisCo (between Diogo Siston and PAE Aris

Thessaloniki) and the Official Announcement made by HFF, several players –

creditors submitted relevant claims before the competent judicial body in order to

recover their credits. They retained the certainty that finally HFF would abide by FIFA

Regulations, CAS jurisprudence and the principles established therein, regarding

sporting succession. Nevertheless, this was not the case.

54. On that respect, a legal pattern was adopted by the HFF’s judicial bodies in order for

the football clubs concerned to be protected and circumvent the payments of their

respective debts. This pattern was mainly adopted regarding disputes in relation to the

time barrier of the sporting season 2016-2017. In particular, despite the fact that this time

barrier was theoretically set aside, the AT of HFF invented a new legal scheme in order to

reject every relevant claim.

55. The abovementioned legal practice, combined with the problematic structure and function

of the Arbitral Tribunal of HFF, constitute the second-scale infringement of FIFA

Regulations by the HFF, regarding sporting succession.

i. The disregard of FIFA Regulations, and the legal pattern adopted by AT

of HFF

56. Following the Official Announcement made by HFF on 31 January 2020, several players –

creditors filed Claims before the Arbitral Tribunal of HFF (the competent judicial body to

adjudicate upon sporting succession disputes), in order to recover their credits by the

- 22 -

respective FSA. They did retain the certainty that HFF is finally abiding by FIFA

Regulations regarding sporting succession and the time barrier the sporting season

2016-2017 would have been set aside.

57. On 15 July 2020, the first relevant claim was submitted (and consequently the first decision

was published) by Panagiotis Kontovas against PAE Aris Thessaloniki. The AT of HFF

rendered the Decision Nr. 107/2020 (Exhibit 8) according to which the Greek club was

identified beyond doubt as the sporting successor of the precedent FSA and thus was

ordered to undertake 50% of the financial liabilities incurred by the Old Club.

58. The critical points of the abovementioned decision were the following:

(i) The “Old Club” of PAE Aris Thessaloniki was relegated and set under liquidation

regime prior to the time barrier of the sporting season 2016-2017

(ii) The “New Club” of PAE Aris Thessaloniki was established prior to the end of the

sporting season 2016-2017

(iii) The “New Club” was ordered to undertake the financial liabilities incurred by the “Old

Club” prior to the time barrier of the sporting season 2016-2017.

59. The abovementioned decision adjudicated for the first time in the favor of a player

– creditor and ordered a Greek football club to undertake, as the sporting successor,

financial liabilities incurred by the precedent FSA prior to the time barrier of 2016-

2017. Following the Decision Nr. 107/2020, several players – creditors filed similar claims

before the AT of HFF in order to recover their credits by the respective sporting successors.

60. Nevertheless, the aforementioned decision arose a massive wave of complaints and

protests on behalf of the football clubs in Greece (Exhibit 9)11. In particular, presidents,

owners and attorneys representing specific football clubs (which have opted for the

reprehensible legal route of relegation in order to circumvent payments) used to verbally

assault the arbitrator who rendered the decision, almost on a daily basis. They were

11 Exhibit 9 – Articles regarding the reaction of the Greek football clubs to the Decision Nr. 107/2020 of the

AT of HFF, regarding the dispute between Panagiotis Kontovas v. Aris Thessaloniki.

- 23 -

arguing that the decision was going to be destructive for Greek Football, it has no legal

basis, and it violated the national public policy! It was also argued that the implementation

of the HFF Regulations and Sport Act was so erroneous and faulty that a criminal

investigation is going to be triggered against the Sole Arbitrator of AT as to assess the

eventuality of criminal liabilities being raised!

61. The impact of this unprecedent pressure being patently exerted was made clear upon the

adjudication of the following claims regarding sporting succession in Greece. In particular,

it was argued by the aforementioned “protesters” that national law shall prevail and the

time barrier of the sporting season 2016-2017 shall be respected as it is of outmost

importance. As such, no club which falls under the umbrella of this time barrier shall be

ordered to undertake the financial liabilities of the precedent FSA. In the light of that, the

vast majority of these similar claims was rejected by AT of HFF, with a very few exceptions

(Exhibit 10)12.

62. It follows the legal pattern adopted by the AT of HFF as to the rejection of every similar

claim regarding sporting succession:

(i) The sporting succession was identified beyond doubt in each and every case. In

other words, every newly established FSA was identified as the sporting successor

of the respective precedent FSA. Reference is made to the fact that as per the

national legislation, sporting succession in Greece is dictated de jure.

(ii) Each and every newly established FSA was ordered to undertake the financial

liabilities incurred by the precedent FSA. The time barrier of the sporting season

2016-2017 was set aside by the AT of HFF.

(iii) Nevertheless, the claimants’ request for sanctions to be imposed in case of non-

payment against the newly established FSAs was rejected by the AT of HFF as

abusive, in each and every case.

12 Exhibit 10 – A table provided to your respectful Committee by the Complainanrs,into which it is depicted

the legal pattern adopted by AT of HFF regarding the sporting succession disputes.

- 24 -

63. The legal tool of “abuse” was evoked and came into action with a slightly different

justification and legal basis in each and every case. In certain cases, the “abuse” was

justified due to the excessive inaction on behalf of the creditor regarding the pursuit of his

credit and the non-initiation of legal remedies against the sporting successor. In other

cases, the “abuse” was justified on the fact that the creditor had not initiated legal remedies

against the CEO and owner of the respective precedent FSA in order to retrieve his credit.

In the rest of the cases, the “abuse” was justified due to the long time elapsed between the

foundation of the newly established FSA and the claim before the AT of HFF.

64. To sum up, the main axis according to which every relevant claim was rejected by AT of

HFF was the fact that the inaction on behalf of the player – creditor created the certain

belief to the respective football club that the recovery of the relevant credit is not going to

be pursued.

65. Nonetheless, it was “completely disregarded” the fact that it was completely impossible for

a player – creditor to initiate legal remedies against the respective sporting successor until

31 January 2020. The relevant provisions of HFF’s regulatory framework were undeniably

prohibiting players – creditors to file claims against the respective sporting successors in

accordance with the time barrier of the sporting season 2016 -2017. As such, the decisions

rendered by AT of HFF completely disregard every sense of public policy and legal

contemplation.

66. This allegation becomes clear when you take into consideration the following:

(i) Until 2016, no mention was made regarding sporting succession in Greece. As such,

it was completely impossible for a creditor to initiate legal remedies against the

respective newly established FSA in order to recover his credit.

(ii) From the end of the sporting season 2016-2017 until 31 January 2020, a creditor

could initiate legal remedies against the sporting successor only in case the

precedent FSA was set under liquidation regime (and the newly established FSA

was founded) after the end of the sporting season 2016-2017. In case a creditor’s

claim did not satisfy the aforementioned time barrier, then he was prohibited de jure

- 25 -

to initiate legal remedies against the respective sporting successor and seek on

legal protection!

67. In the light of that, it was de jure prohibited for a player – creditor to initiate legal remedies

against the respective sporting successor. In this regard, public policy and legal order are

brutally violated when a creditor is retroactively “contemned” for not having initiated legal

remedies that he was not provided with! As such, the abusiveness of the relevant claims

was the perfect tool in order for the Greek football clubs circumvent the payment of their

credits with the official “blessings” of HFF!

ii. As to the structure and function of the Arbitral Tribunal of HFF

68. As it has already been mentioned, the Arbitral Tribunal of HFF is competent to hear

disputes of sporting succession, within that national regulatory framework. It follows a brief

presentation describing the structure of the tribunal as well as the partial function of it in

favor of the football club’s interest, during the adjudication of sporting succession disputes.

69. Primarily, it shall be mentioned that there is a complete lack of a second-instance

adjudication regarding sporting succession disputes. In other words, the decisions

rendered by the AT of HFF on the first instance turn automatically final and binding for the

parties and there is no provision regarding possible appeal against it. As such, even if a

decision clearly violates the public policy or the principle of equal treatment of the parties

or implements erroneously the relevant regulations, still the decision remains unappealable

and turns final and binding for the parties. On that respect, the core principle of procedural

fairness is violated which constitutes a cornerstone of lex sportiva as per the consistent

CAS’ jurisprudence.

70. On the same direction relies also the fact that the AT of HFF has been selected as the

competent judicial body to resolve sporting succession disputes instead of the Disciplinary

Committee of HFF, which might be a more sensible option. Given the disciplinary nature

of these disputes, it would be expected to fall under the jurisdiction of the HFF’s Disciplinary

Committee. Nevertheless, this is not the case and there is a clear explanation for this

- 26 -

tactical choice made by HFF regarding the competent forum to adjudicate regarding the

sporting succession disputes.

71. The main (regulatory) difference between the two aforementioned judicial bodies is the

following. The decisions rendered by the HFF’s Disciplinary Committee are appealable

before the Appealing Committee of HFF. In this regard, decisions rendered by the Appeal

Committee of HFF are appealable before CAS. On the contrary, the decisions rendered by

AT of HFF are automatically final and binding, as it has already been mentioned.

72. In the light of that, it shall become clear that the AT of HFF constitutes the only option for

HFF in order to cover and enhance the Greek football clubs to circumvent the payments of

their respective credits. If the sporting succession disputes fell under the jurisdiction of

HFF’s Disciplinary Committee, then CAS would have ratified any misconduct and

misjudgment, as the ultimate deciding body; thus, the adoption of a legal pattern in order

to reject every sporting succession claim by the HFF would have been impossible!

73. In addition, a critical mention shall be made regarding the structure of the Arbitral Tribunal

of HFF. The AT of HFF is consisted of 48 Arbitrators plus the President, the Vice-

president and three members. Nevertheless, only 3 out of 48 Arbitrators are

designated by the Hellenic Football Players’ Association (Exhibit 11)13! Furthermore,

the AT of HFF mainly used to convene in a Single Judge composition regarding sporting

succession disputes (and the Single Judge permanently derives from the football clubs-

designated pool). Hence, it occurs an aggressive violation of the players’ right of equal

representation, fair proceedings and access to justice can be overwhelmingly displayed.

74. Since the beginning of the current sporting season, a slight restructure of AT of HFF has

taken place. In specific, the former arbitrators/judges have been replaced with new ones;

nonetheless, the analogy between the arbitrators designated by the Football Players’

Association and the rest of them remained unchanged. Moreover, the AT of HFF currently

convenes in a 3-member synthesis in order to adjudicate upon sporting succession claims.

13 Exhibit 11 – The composition of the Arbitral Tribunal of HFF, pursuant to the website of HFF (the

arbitrators designated by the Hellenic Football Player’s Association are underlined in red).

- 27 -

Nevertheless, the main ratio regarding such an amendment is the increase of the relevant

court fees. In particular, the court fees have been increased more than 200%. It shall be

mentioned that this increase has been made during such (financially) tough period because

of the pandemic of Covid-19. As you may assume, such an increase is another measure

initiated by HFF in order on one hand to discourage players/creditors from seeking legal

protection against the respective sporting successor and thus on the other hand to offer

“institutional” protection to the Greek football clubs that have followed such a mala fide

route for circumvent their financial liabilities.

75. In the light of these remarks, AT of HFF clearly does not comply with FIFA Circular Letter

1010, and as such it shall not be considered as an impartial, independent and duly

constituted arbitration tribunal, competent to hear disputes which arise within the national

legal framework of Greece. The Claimant did file his claim before AT of HFF as it

constituted the only option within the national legal framework in order to retrieve his credit

by the New Club. Nonetheless, the incompatibility of the tribunal with the established

standards by FIFA.

B. The core principle of uniformity and equal treatment within the football family

76. In the football world, clubs are affiliated to their national football associations which are

respectively member associations of FIFA. Following the supra hierarchical pyramid

structure14, FIFA, like other international sports federations, has developed into the

supreme regulatory authority within its sports15, exerting legislative and administrative

powers and enjoying substantial independence and autonomy from governments and

national law. It has essentially developed into a self-regulated organization, being only

slightly curtailed in its autonomy at international level by a few court decisions.16 Insofar as

14 See the EC Commission’s “consultation document” drafted by the Directorate General X and entitled the

European model of sports, Brussels 1999, chapter one.

15 CAS 98/200 AEK Athens and SK Slavia Prague / Union of Europoean Football Associations (UEFA),

award of 20 August 1999, par. 14

16 The well-known Bosman ruling by the EU Court of Justice (judgement of 15 December 1995, case C-

415/93)

- 28 -

FIFA, as monopoly federation, is exercising autonomy in issuing regulations and is shaping

the world of football, FIFA is acting in a manner that is comparable to a state legislator17.

FIFA itself treats its own regulations much like law, promulgating them as binding on

national football associations, clubs, players and so on.”18.

77. Furthermore, it has been outlined by CAS’ jurisprudence that “all sporting institutions, and

in particular all international federations, must abide by general principles of law. Due to

the transnational nature of sporting competitions, the effects of the conduct and deeds of

international federations are felt in a sporting community throughout various countries.

Therefore, the substantive and procedural rules to be respected by international

federations cannot be reduced only to its own statutes and regulations and to the laws of

the country where the federation is incorporated or of the country where its headquarters

are. Sports law has developed and consolidated along the years, particularly through the

arbitral settlement of disputes, a set of unwritten legal principles – a sort of lex mercatoria

for sports or, so to speak, a lex ludica – to which national and international sports

federations must conform, regardless of the presence of such principles within their own

statutes and regulations or within any applicable national law, provided that they do not

conflict with any national «public policy» («ordre public») provision applicable to a given

case. Certainly, general principles of law drawn from a comparative or common

denominator reading of various domestic legal systems [...] can be deemed to be part of

such lex ludica”19. With respect to this citation, is shall be noticed that what was then termed

“lex ludica” has become by now widely known as “lex sportiva”.20

78. In this regard, as per Beloff, lex sportiva has three main elements: it has transnational

norms generated by the rules and practices of international sporting federation, it has a

unique jurisprudence with legal principles that are different from those of national courts

17 CAS 2006/A/1181 FC Metz v. Ferencvarosi, award of 14 May 2007, par. 10

18 CAS 2014/A/3776 Gibraltar Football Association (GFA) v. Fédération Internationale de Football

Association (FIFA), award of 27 April 2016, par. 239

19 CAS 98/200, AEK Athens and SK Slavia Prague / Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), award

of 20 August 1999 par. 188

20 CAS 2014/A/3776 Gibraltar Football Association (GFA) v. Fédération Internationale de Football

Association (FIFA), award of 27 April 2016, par. 264

- 29 -

which are declared by the Court of Arbitration for Sports and it is constitutionally

autonomous from national law. As such, FIFA Regulations appear as a transnational legal

alien! It is a private corpus of norms applying autonomously to a specific set of transnational

economic relations i.e. international football transfers and labor contracts. Hence, it is

(almost) irrelevant whether these norms are recognized as legitimate by national legal

orders; they take precedence by being effective in practice. The same is true for the CAS,

as FIFA Statutes foresee that the CAS shall primarily apply the various FIFA Regulations

and additionally Swiss law. In FIFA judicial bodies’ and CAS’ practice, this usually means

that FIFA Regulations shall prevail over national law unless there is a legal lacuna.

79. In practice, the CAS in its jurisprudence has not hesitated to set aside national laws to the

privilege of FIFA Regulations.21 This view is also supported in the literature in the name of

the necessity to preserve the equality before the law and to secure legal certainty.22 This

allows the process of harmonization of the rules and their interpretation to be advanced by

the international sporting federations. A side result of the CAS’ principle of harmonization

has been its willingness to perform an educating role for sporting federations (and/or

associations) by suggesting additions or amendments to existing rulebooks.

80. The same supra-assessments were outlined by CAS in the arbitration CAS 2004/A/678

Apollon Kalamarias FC v. Davidson Oliveira Morais, award of 20 May 2005, where CAS

was called to adjudicate upon the primacy of general principles of law over particular laws

of particular countries in the context of global sport. As such, it was found that the Greek

Sports Law (Law 2725/1999, aka the same Law as the dispute at stake) was inconsistent

with general principles of labor law. For these reasons “the Panel came to the conclusion

that the DRC’s decision ought to stand, it was handed down by a multinational Panel of

broad international experience who would enjoy a collective wisdom and appreciation of

21 TAS 2005/A/983 & 984 Club Atlético Peñarol c. Carlos Heber Bueno Suarez, Cristian Gabriel Rodriguez

Barrotti & Paris Saint-Germain, award of 12 July 2006

22 Zimmerman M (2015) “Vertragsstabilität im internationalen Fussball”. Dike Verlag, Zürich/St. Gallen p.

127: ‘Es ist anzustreben, dass für alle Teilnehmer des verbandsrechtlich organisierten Fussballs dieselben

Voraussetzungen gelten. Dies führt bei Streitigkeiten zu einer besseren Vorhersehbarkeit und schliesslich

auch zu grösserer Rechtssicherheit.’

- 30 -

where the acceptable limits on restraint of trade lay. It is appropriate to mitigate the letter

of Greek law by the spirit of general principles”.23

81. Following the development of lex sportiva as the “regulatory fuel” of sports industry, a new

legal concept has been adopted in order to outline the sui generis regulatory nature of

sports market; in other words, to identify that sport is special (and how special).

82. In this regard, the ‘specificity of sport’ is the legal concept (and method or instrument of

appreciation or assessment) that is applied by the European Commission and the

European Court of Justice to tackle this question on a case-by-case basis, in order to

determine whether the sporting rules and regulations concerned are acceptable in EU law.

Next to that, the proportionality test requires that each case is assessed on its own merits

according to its own particular features or characteristics. The concept of ‘sport specificity’

may be distinguished in sport specificity lato sensu and sport specificity stricto sensu. Sport

specificity lato sensu concerns the external, societal context of sport, the ‘extra-sportive’

role and function of sport, in particular professional sport, as a policy instrument in the

society at large. Sport specificity stricto sensu applies to how sport is regulated and

organized. It is the internal, purely sporting side of the coin. Stricto sensu, the organization

of sport on a national basis, the principle of a single federation per sport, the pyramid

structure of open competitions, separate competitions for men and women, voluntariness,

the position of amateur sport, the interdependence between competing adversaries, the

principle of equal opportunities and uncertainty of results (competitive balance), financial

solidarity (especially, professional football), national teams of ‘(EU-) nationals,’

compensation schemes for young players (football), limitation of the number of participants

in a competition (other than national teams), transfer deadlines in team sports, anti-doping

rules, ‘at home and away from home’ rule (football), no multiple ownership in sport clubs,

ticketing arrangements for safety reasons, are particular characteristics of sport(s) itself—

at least from an EU law perspective.

83. In the light of these remarks, sporting succession shall be identified as a core element of

lex sportiva which embodies also the specificity of sports. In other words, the sui generis

23 CAS 2004/A/678 Apollon Kalamarias FC v. Davidson Oliveira Morais, award of 20 May 2005, par. 22

- 31 -

legal concept of sporting succession constitutes a privilege of football industry and it shall

be implemented regardless of the national laws of each respective jurisdiction. The same

assessments have been also outlined by CAS’ jurisprudence, as per which “the issue of

the succession of two sporting clubs, might be different than if one were to apply civil law

regarding the succession of two separate legal entities. In particular, it is important to recall

that according to CAS, a club is a sporting entity identifiable by itself that generally

transcends the legal entities that operate it24. Additionally, “a club is a sporting entity

identifiable by itself that, as a general rule, transcends the legal entities that operate it,

meaning that the obligations acquired by any of the entities in charge of its administration,

in relation with its activity, must be respected. On the other side, it has been stated that the

identity of a club is constituted by elements such as its name, colors, fans, history, sporting

achievements, shield, trophies, stadium, roster of players, historic figures etc. These

elements allow a club to distinguish from all the other clubs. Hence, the prevalence of the

continuity and permanence in time of the sporting institution in front of the entity that

manages it has been recognized, even when dealing with the change of management

completely different from themselves25”.

84. In the present dispute, the unequal treatment of the players – creditors shall be identified

beyond doubt. The HFF has been consistently inclining in favor of the Greek football

clubs and secure their interests by constitutionally enhancing the complete

circumvention of their financial liabilities. The national regulatory framework regarding

sporting succession (i.e. the time of the sporting season 2016-2017, the percentage of

50% as for the undertaking of the financial liabilities by the newly established FSA etc) as

well as the permanent legal practice adopted by the AT of HFF shall be identified quite

below the standards established in FIFA Regulations, CAS’ jurisprudence and lex sportiva.

The situation remained unaltered even after the FIFA DisCo Decision 200193, according

to which HFF was fined with EUR 500.000,00. The players’ – creditors’ certainty that the

HFF’s approach regarding sporting succession would finally change and that they would

24 CAS 2016/A/4576 Darwin Zamir Andrade Marmolejo v. Club Deportivo La Equidad Seguros S.A. &

Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and CAS 2016/A/4576 Újpest 1885 FC v. FIFA,

award of 24 November 2016

25 CAS 2013/A/3425 Adelante Tiburones A.C. v. Club Santa Fe CD

- 32 -

be eventually able to retrieve their credits, as it the case exclusively for those colleagues

who had chosen the FIFA’s legal route, was completely refuted! The facts and figures of

sporting succession in Greece clearly demonstrate beyond doubt that it is impossible for a

player – creditor to retrieve his credit by the respective sporting successor within the

national legal framework.

85. The infringement of the core principle of equal treatment becomes more severe upon the

examination of cases against certain Greek football clubs (such as PAE Aris

Thessaloniki26), before the judicial bodies of FIFA and HFF respectively. In specific, as it

has already been mentioned PAE Aris Thessaloniki has been defeated in every dispute

before FIFA’s judicial bodies and as such the relevant “New Club” has already proceeded

in the relevant payments to the respective creditors. On the contrary, the creditors who

have referred their cases against FC Aris Thessaloniki to the domestic fora, they are called

upon to deal with a completely different situation in relation to their aforementioned

colleagues; they are facing the “legal fence” raised by HFF in order to deter the pursuit of

their respective credits and secure, amongst others, the interests of the “New Club”.

86. The two critical questions at this point are the following: Who shall be held liable for

the infringement of the core principle of equal treatment? Who is competent to

supervise the uniformity within the football family and sanction the member in

breach for the relevant infringement?

87. As to the first question, the European Commission, as guardian of the EC Treaty and within

the framework of its competences, can initiate infringement proceedings before the

European Court of Justice against Member States that have breached Community law.

26 FIFA DRC Decision on 04 June 2020 Oriol Lozano Farran v. Aris FC (Athlitikos Syllogos Thessalonikis o

Aris Podosfairiki Anonymi Eteria); FIFA DisCo Decision 131149 PST Cristian Portilla Rodriguez v. FC Aris

(Athlitikos Syllogos Thessalonikis o Aris Podosfairiki Anonymi Eteria); FIFA DisCo Decision FDD – 5740

Antonio Galzado v. Aris FC (Athlitikos Syllogos Thessalonikis o Aris Podosfairiki Anonymi Eteria); FIFA

DisCo Decision 200281 Ruben Palazuelos Garcia v. Aris FC (Athlitikos Syllogos Thessalonikis o Aris

Podosfairiki Anonymi Eteria); FIFA DisCo Decision FDD – 5730 Bill McCurdo v. Aris FC (Athlitikos Syllogos

Thessalonikis o Aris Podosfairiki Anonymi Eteria); FIFA DisCo Decision 130834 PST; FIFA DisCo Decision

131086 PST; FIFA DisCo Decision 150025 PST. For the convenience of your respectful Committee, these

decisions are attached as Exhibit 12

- 33 -

According to the case-law, an infringement procedure can be initiated against a Member

State if government authorities of that Member State are at the origin of the infringement27.

As to the actions of private entities, the ECJ has indicated that Member States might be

responsible for breach of EC law by private entities, recognized as having legal personality,

whose activities are directly or indirectly under State control. Possible criteria that are

mentioned in this context are, in particular the appointment of the members of the entity’s

management committee by state authorities, and the granting of public subsidies which

cover the greater part of its expenses28. Therefore, the fundamental element authorizing

the Commission to initiate an infringement procedure against a Member State is the

existence of behavior breaching Community law that can be attributed to the State. The

same reasoning applies also in the field of professional sports activities, where in order for

the services of the Commission to launch the infringement procedure, behavior—

breaching Community law attributed to the State must be present.

88. On the same sense, it is worth noting that CAS often refers to public international law

principles. In the Dodo case, for instance, the Brazilian national soccer federation

(Confederação Brasileira de Futebol) was held responsible for decisions issued by the

Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol (STJD), a body partially independent

from the national federation, because of the principle which states that ‘‘States are

internationally liable for judgments rendered by their courts, even if under their

constitutional law the judiciary is wholly independent of the executive branch29.

89. As a consequence, HFF shall be held exclusively liable as to the infringement of the core

principle of equal treatment and uniformity as well as the complete disregard of lex sportiva

and FIFA Regulations. The fact that HFF is recurring following the FIFA DisCo Decision

Nr. 200193 shall be perceived as an aggravating factor by your respective Committee. In

addition, it shall be examined the severeness of the infringement by HFF. In specific, a

27 Case C-95/97 Région wallone v. Commission, ECR 1997, I–1787

28 Case C-249/81 Commission v. Ireland, ECR 1982, 4005.

29 CAS 2007/A/1370, FIFA v. Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol (STJD) & Confederação

Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) & Mr Ricardo Lucas Dodô & CAS 2007/A/1376 WADA v. Superior Tribunal de

Justiça Desportiva do Futebol (STJD) & Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) & Mr Ricardo Lucas

Dodô, award of 11 September 2008, par. 19

- 34 -

minor violation of the aforementioned principles regarding one single case, could be

treated with the utmost leniency by FIFA. Nevertheless, in the present case, the

infringement on behalf of HFF is the most relentless possible. The aforementioned

principles have been deliberately and so severely violated within the national legal

framework, that they have been almost completely eradicated!

90. As to the second supra question, FIFA as the international football federation, constitutes

the supreme regulatory and supervising authority within football family. On this note, all

parties of football industry are – at least indirectly- affiliated to FIFA30. CAS also outlines

the obligation for all member of FIFA, in accordance with FIFA Statutes, to ensure that their

own member comply with the Statutes, regulations, directives and decisions of FIFA

bodies.31 As such, FIFA retains the competence to secure that the core principle of equal

treatment and uniformity is respected by the 211 Member Associations. In principle, sports

federations can freely establish their own provisions (cf. ZEN-RUFFINEN, Droit du Sport,

2002, marg. no. 161). FIFA leaves a certain discretion to the National Federations to deal

with their affairs, in particular with regard to the purely national matters. CAS32, also, refers

as an example to the commentary of Article 1 of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and

Transfer of Players, which states in particular the following:

“As a general rule, FIFA does not interfere in the day-to-day business of the associations,

provided that severe infringements of the FIFA Statutes and/or regulations do not occur.

The autonomy of the association is, however, limited by the basic principles of the

Regulations that have to be observed at all times and in particular by those provisions that

30 CAS 2008/A/1517 Ionikos FC v. C., award of 23 February 2009 par. 4; CAS 2008/A/1518 Ionikos FC v.

L., award of 23 February 2009 par. 7.

31 CAS 2008/A/1517 Ionikos FC v. C., award of 23 February 2009 par. 15; CAS 2008/A/1518 Ionikos FC v.

L., award of 23 February 2009 par. 15.

32 CAS 2013/A/3276 Thanda Royal Zulu FC (Pty) Limited v. South African Football Association (SAFA), The

National Soccer League, Chippa United FC, Santos FC, Mpumalanga Black Aces FC, Polokwane City FC,

Adv. P. Pretorius SC N.O. & Adv. P. Mokoena SC N.O., award of 27 June 2014 par. 114, 115.

- 35 -

are in particular binding at national level and have to be included without modification in

the association regulations”.

91. This position of FIFA demonstrates that the National Federations have a large discretion

with regard to purely national issues. It is true that certain provisions of the FIFA regulations

have to be included without modification in the National Federations’ regulations.

92. However, there are limits to this autonomy. In particular the relevant organs when creating

new rules and regulations are bound by the limits imposed on them by higher ranking

norms, in particular the association’s statutes. This follows from the principle of legality

(“Le principe de la légalité implique l’exigence de la conformité aux statuts des textes

réglementaires inférieurs et des décisions des organes sociaux”, cf. BADDELEY M.,

L‟association sportive face au droit, Les limites de son autonomie, 1994, p. 208).

According to this principle, regulations of a lower level may complement and concretize

higher ranking provision, but not amend nor contradict or change them. This principle is

also well established in CAS jurisprudence33. As explained by HAAS (ibidem, page 15),

“FIFA lays down the standard for a particular sports industry in its rules and regulations

[and] the purpose of the reference to Swiss law in Article 66 (2) of the FIFA Statutes is to

ensure the uniform interpretation of the standards of the industry”.34. As such, “only if the

same terms and conditions apply to everyone who participates in organized sport, are the

integrity and equal opportunity of sporting competition guaranteed”.35

93. Regarding the dispute at stake, FIFA comprehends this constitutional role, and therefore it

has embodied the aforementioned principles in Article 15 par. 5 FIFA DC. In specific,

Member Associations are ordered to adjudicate sporting succession disputes in

accordance with FIFA Regulations and the principles established therein. The sole ratio of

this provision is the protection of lex sportiva and the intention of FIFA to secure that

33 CAS 2008/A/1705 Grasshopper v. Alianza Lima, award of 18 June 2009 par. 25, CAS 2006/A/1181 FC

Metz v. Ferencvarosi, award of 14 May 2007 par 8.2.2; CAS 2006/A/1125 Herta BSC Berlin v. Stade

Lavallois Mayenne FC award of 1 December 2006 par 6.18; CAS 2004/A/794, par 10.4.15

34 CAS 2016/A/4471 Abel Aguilar Tapias v. Hércules de Alicante FC, award of 2 February 2017 par. 70

35 CAS 2008/A/1517 Ionikos FC v. C., award of 23 February 2009 par. 17; CAS 2008/A/1518 Ionikos FC v.

L., award of 23 February 2009 par. 17, CAS 2006/A/1180 par. 7.9.

- 36 -

disputes are going to be resolved in accordance with the same rules and principles around

the world, regardless the judicial body which might deal with the dispute and/or the

peculiarities of every respective national law. CAS jurisprudence also outlines regarding

the non-compliance of a national association with the FIFA Statutes that FIFA has the

authority to impose sanctions on the Federation in question but there no automatic

modification of the national Federation’s Statutes (and regulations) due to such non-

compliance36. In the light of that, FIFA DisCo shall enforce its jurisdiction on the dispute at

stake, hold HFF liable as for the severe infringement of FIFA Regulatory Framework and

order the party in breach to act in accordance with the relevant provisions and the principles

established therein.

i. The ad hoc paradigm of Oriol Lozano Farran and Ricardo William Faty v.

PAE Aris Thessaloniki

94. Despite the plethora of FIFA and CAS case law regarding sporting succession disputes in

relation to Greek football clubs, the Complainant wish to make an explicit reference to

the dispute of Oriol Lozano Farran v. PAE Aris Thessaloniki (before FIFA judicial

bodies) in comparison to the dispute of Ricardo William Faty v. PAE Aris

Thessaloniki (before HFF judicial bodies). In the light of all the supra submissions, the

following remarks shall be made in order to demonstrate beyond doubt the infringement of

the principle of equal treatment as well as FIFA Regulations by HFF and its judicial bodies.

95. At the outset, Mr. Faty and Mr. Oriol used to be teammates as they did offer their

services to PAE Aris Thessaloniki during the season 2010-2011 (Exhibit 12)37.

Following the infringement of the respective contractual obligations by Old Aris’, both

players did follow an identical legal route in order to retrieve their due accrued

salaries; firstly, by the “Old Club” and after the demotion of the Precedent FSA by the

36 CAS 2012/A/2900 FC Otelul Galati S.A. v. Romanian Football Federation (RFF) & Codoban Tatar Ionel,

award of 12 June 2013 par. 88; CAS 2008/A/1600 par. 5.19.

37 Exhibit 12 – The Transfermarkt profiles of Mr. Faty and Mr. Oriol Lozano Farran. These profiles may be

also found on the following links: https://www.transfermarkt.com/ricardo-faty/profil/spieler/33953 (Ricardo

William Faty) and https://www.transfermarkt.com/oriol-lozano/profil/spieler/25413 (Oriol Lozano Farran)

- 37 -

“New Club” of PAE Aris Thessaloniki. Nonetheless, they have been facing a completely

contradictory situation!

In specific:

Ricardo William Faty Oriol Lozano Farran

Claim before National DRC against Old Aris Claim before FIFA DRC against Old Aris

Participation in the Rehabilitation Proceedings

initiated by “Old Aris” (Creditor Nr. 14, see Exhibit

13)

Participation in the Rehabilitation Proceedings

initiated by “Old Aris” (Creditor Nr. 29, see

Exhibit 13)

Claim before the AT of HFF against the First

Respondent as the sporting successor of the Old

Club

Claim before FIFA DRC against the First

Respondent as the sporting successor of the Old

Club

AT of HFF Decision Nr. 136/2020

- Sporting succession certified

- New Aris undertakes the credit incurred by

Old Aris

- No sanctions threatened in case of non-

payment by New Aris (the relevant request

is rejected as abusive!)

FIFA DRC Decision passed on 4 June 2020

- Sporting succession certified

- New Aris undertakes the credit incurred

by Old Aris

- New Aris is ordered to pay within 30

days the stipulated amounts, otherwise

Disciplinary Proceedings will be initiated

N/A New Aris appeals before CAS

N/A On 26 May 2021, CAS renders a decision

(Exhibit 14) according to which the supra FIFA

DRC decision is upheld. Therefore, New Aris is

ordered to proceed to the immediate payment of

the stipulated amounts to Mr. Oriol

96. In the light of the above, despite following the same legal route with identical factual

background, Mr. Faty and Mr. Oriol are called to face a diametrically contradictory situation.

While Mr. Faty was denied being remunerated by the relevant Greek football club regarding

his accrued salaries, Mr. Oriol is entitled to receive his monies by FC Aris Thessaloniki

during the deadline stipulated into the supra CAS award.

97. The only difference between the two disputes mentioned above is the judicial forum before

which Mr. Faty and Mr. Oriol did file their claims respectively against Greek football club.

Mr. Faty was “obliged” to follow the legal framework outlined by HFF given that he had to

- 38 -

enforce against the “New Club” a decision rendered by the NDRC. As such, he tried to

“exhaust every internal legal remedy”. Following the declarations of HFF and the FIFA

DisCo decision regarding Diogo Siston v. PAE Aris Thessaloniki, Mr. Faty retained

the

certainty that the domestic judicial bodies of Greece (as well as HFF) would finally abide

by FIFA Regulations and the relevant CAS’ jurisprudence. As such, he has followed the

legal route delineated by HFF retaining the certain belief that his dispute is going to have

the very same outcome as the disputes of between his former teammates (who did follow

the legal route of FIFA) and “New Aris”. Nonetheless, HFF did retain a different opinion.

98. On the contrary, Mr. Oriol “being blessed” to have obtained a FIFA DRC decision regarding

his dispute against the Greek club, he did follow the legal route provided by FIFA. As such,

his dispute has been adjudicated by FIFA judicial forum (and subsequently CAS following

the New Club’s appeal) in accordance with FIFA Regulations and the principles established

therein. In the light of that, he did obtain a decision according to which he is entitled to be

remunerated by PAE Aris Thessaloniki within the deadline stipulated into the CAS award.

99. In the light of these events, the severe infringement of FIFA Regulations and the principles

established therein by HFF shall be certified beyond doubt. The supra disputes do outline

in the most direct and unambiguous way the unequal treatment that players- creditors do

experience because of the HFF’s infringement of FIFA Regulations. As a paradigm, two

similar cases with identical factual background have been treated quite unequally (like the

vast majority of sporting succession dispute before HFF) and the outcome achieved has

been so contradictory, that FIFA DisCo does constitutes the ultimate option so that this

legal anomaly to be healed.

ii. The adventure of Diogo Rodrigues Siston before FIFA and HFF

respectively

100. As it has already been mentioned, Diogo Siston managed to retrieve his credit by

PAE Aris Thessalonikis following the legal route of FIFA judicial bodies (decision nr.

150025 PST/November 2019). In specific, he enforced a decision rendered by FIFA judicial

forum against the sporting successor of the supra Greek football club and as such the latter

- 39 -

was left no other choice but to proceed to the respective payment (despite its primary

violation of the decision rendered by FIFA DisCo).

101. Nonetheless, PAE Aris Thessaloniki was not the only Greek football club that owed

monies to Diogo Siston. As your respectful Committee may clearly assume, the second

Greek club decided as well to be relegated to amateur divisions and establish a new FSA

for to circumvent the undertaken financial obligations. In particular, PAE Ionikos 1965

embraced the long-standing pattern adopted by Greek football clubs (with the blessings of

HFF) in order to avoid the respective payments. As such, following his great victory against

PAE Aris Thessaloniki before FIFA (after a legal struggle that lasted more than eight years),

Mr. Diogo Siston initiated also similar legal remedies before the judicial bodies of HFF

against PAE Ionikos 1965. Despite the fact that each dispute (of sporting succession) shall

be adjudicated in a case by case scenario, the dispute of Mr. Diogo Siston against PAE

Aris Thessaloniki and PAE Ionikos 1965 were quite identical. The only critical difference

between them was the judicial forum which adjudicated upon each case. Therefore, AT of

HFF published the decision nr. 132/2020 (Exhibit 15) according to which the sporting

succession between the two respective FSAs of PAE Ionikos 1965 was identified, the new

club was instructed to undertake the credit of the precedent FSA nonetheless no sanction

was threatened because the relevant request was identified as abusive.

102. As such we do have the “Greek paradox” according to which the very same

claimant/creditor/player has been facing two quite contradictive situations depending on

the judicial panel that adjudicated each case. FIFA has awarded him with a proper legal

examination of his respective claim and thus he managed to retrieve his credit by PAE Aris

Thessaloniki. Nonetheless, when he was obliged to follow the legal framework of HFF, the

outcome was quite the opposite. In specific, his claim was rejected due to the abusive

nature of the relevant request (regarding the imposition of sanctions in case of non-

payment), as it did happen with the vast majority of the relevant cases before the AT of

HFF.

- 40 -

VI. CONCLUSIONS

103. The situation in Greece regarding the (legal) treatment of sporting succession

could not be worse. The HFF has adopted a permanent legal pattern in order to reject

every relevant claim regarding sporting succession within the national legal

framework and to discourage creditors to initiate the related legal remedies. This

pattern comes as a perpetuation of a permanent disregard of FIFA Regulations by the

HFF itself, with an ultimate purpose the circumvention of the financial liabilities incurred

by the Greek football clubs. In particular, it has been made absolutely impossible for a

creditor to recover his credit by the respective sporting successor within the national legal

framework of Greece, which is completely absurd.

104. In the light of that, a complete unequal treatment is noticed between the

judicial bodies of FIFA and those of HFF. In specific, while players – creditors are fully

retrieving their credits by the respective sporting successors via the legal route of FIFA,

their former teammates who are filling identical claims before HFF are facing a completely

contradictory situation; the vast majority of these claims are rejected, and they are left no

other option in order to retrieve their credits. The unequal treatment is clearly identified by

comparing (as an example) the disputes of Mr. Oriol Lozano Farran and Mr. Ricardo

William Faty against FC Aris Thessalonikis respectively.

105. The situation remained unaltered even after the sanctioning of HFF by FIFA DisCo

and the fine of EUR 500.000,00. The AT of HFF, which does not meet by any means the

criteria stipulated in FIFA Circular 1010 as an impartial, independent and duly constituted

arbitrational body, persists in adjudicating prejudicial in favor of the clubs! The recurrent

behavior of HFF as well as the severeness of the infringement shall be considered

as aggravating factors by your respectful Committee during the adjudication of the

present dispute.

106. As a consequence, pursuant to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice

and CAS, HFF shall be held liable as to the infringement of FIFA Regulations, the

principle of equal treatment and lex sportiva, given that the infringement occurred within

its regulatory framework and function. In addition, FIFA as the supreme regulatory and

- 41 -

supervising authority of football industry, retains the absolute and principal competence to

supervise the compliance of the established regulations and lex sportiva, rectify any

infringement occurred and sanction the party in breach accordingly.

107. To sum up, FIFA DisCo constitutes the ultimate solution in order for HFF to be

ordered to comply with FIFA Regulations and the principles established therein regarding

sporting succession. We have been left no other choice but to lodge the present Complaint

and collectively take action against the Member Association in breach. Unfortunately, we

were “forced” to proceed to the present Complaint in the light of the loss of our teammate,

colleague and friend Nikos Tsoumanis who could not bear further his financial stressful

burden.

108. In order to describe holistically and aptly the situation of sporting

succession within the Framework of HFF, the Complainants refer to Greek

mythology and in particular to the Myth of Sisyphus “who was condemned by the

God of Olympus for eternity to repeatedly roll a boulder up a hill, only to have it roll

down again once he got it almost to the top”. This metaphor describes the persistent

struggle against the absurdity of life and in casu it clearly describes promptly the

current situation in Greece regarding sporting succession. Regardless the

specificities of each case, the legal remedies initiated by the respective creditor, the

absolute mala fide of the Greek clubs, the player are permanently called to face the

very same violative behavior of HFF; they are rolling a “legal boulder” up to the hill,

only to have it roll down again by the legal pattern adopted by AT of HFF and the

deliberate infringement of FIFA Regulations by the Member Association!

109. As such, the ball now is in the field of FIFA for to conduct the proper investigation

and initiate the relevant measures against the flawed HFF. It is time for the supreme

regulatory authority of global football to see the elephant in the room (HFF’s mala fide

protection to Greek football clubs to the detriment of the football players’ interest) and act

accordingly.

- 42 -

110. On our side, we do retain the hope that Nikos Tsoumanis was the first but only the

last of us who have made such an unfortunate and tearful decision. The situation was

made unbearable long ago; now it is obvious that we have reached the saturation point.

VII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

In the light of the above, the Complainants respectfully request FIFA Disciplinary Committee to:

(i) Conduct a proper and in-depth investigation regarding the legal, practical and

regulatory treatment of sporting succession within the Framework of the Hellenic

Football Federation;

(ii) Consider HFF liable for severe and deliberate infringement of the FIFA Regulatory

Framework and the principles established therein in relation to sporting succession;

(iii) Impose the relevant sanctions against the Hellenic Football Federation for the supra

infringement in the light of FIFA Disciplinary Code;

(iv) Order HFF to abstain from any further breach of the relevant regulatory framework of

FIFA and to take immediate action in order to reinstitute the damage suffered by the

respective players/ creditors. The Complainants suggest that a collective solution

shall be given to the matter at stake with the contribution of the Greek State and the

competent authorities.

(v) Take all the necessary measures in order to resolve the unprecedent situation

regarding the severe infringement of FIFA Regulatory Framework by the Hellenic

Football Federation and the Greek State.

On behalf of the Complainants, on 20 December 2021.

Kosmas Mitsios Georgios Panagopoulos

Attorney-at-law Attorney-at-law

- 43 -

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1 – Articles about the suicide of Nikos Tsoumanis due to his heavy financial difficulties.

Moreover, Articles about the cynical approach of PAE Aris Thessaloniki to such an unfortunate

event (“accusations” of New and Old Club in order to avoid the ethical condemnation of the society)

Exhibit 2 – Power of Attorney

Exhibit 3 – Article dated 3 July 2019, which includes a survey regarding the Greek (football and

basketball) clubs that have circumvented their financial liabilities by establishing a new (football or

basketball) Société Anonyme. It offers a brief glimpse of the current situation regarding sporting

succession in Greece

Exhibit 4 - Stats released by FIFPro regarding the FIFA/FIFPro Fund for Football Players

Exhibit 5 – Article 111 of the Sports Act (Law Nr. 2725/1999) and Articles 4 and 5 Annex 1 of the

HFF’s Regulations on Football Matches, translated by the Complainants

Exhibit 6 – Official Announcement of HFF uploaded on 31 January 2020

Exhibit 7 – Official Announcement of HFF uploaded on 13 January 2021

Exhibit 8 – The Decision Nr. 107/2020 rendered by the AT of HFF regarding the dispute between

Panagiotis Kontovas and PAE Aris Thessaloniki

Exhibit 9 – Articles regarding the reaction of the Greek football clubs to the AT of HFF’s decision

regarding the dispute between Panagiotis Kontovas and PAE Aris Thessaloniki

Exhibit 10 – A table provided by the Complainants which depicts clearly the legal pattern adopted

by AT of HFF regarding sporting succession disputes in order for every relevant claim to be rejected

Exhibit 11 – The composition of the AT of HFF, pursuant to the website of HFF which clearly

outlines the fact that the criteria set by FIFA for the domestic judicial bodies (FIFA Circular 1010)

are not met in casu

- 44 -

Exhibit 12 – The Transfermarkt profiles of Mr. Ricardo William Faty and Mr. Oriol Lozano Farran

Exhibit 13 – The Rehabilitation Proceedings initiated by PAE Aris

Thessaloniki. Mr. Ricardo

William Faty is included as Creditor Nr.14 and Mr. Oriol Lozano Farran as Creditor Nr.29

Exhibit 14 – CAS 2020/A/7290 ARIS FC v. Oriol Lozano Faran & FIFA

Exhibit 15 – AT of HFF’s Decision Nr. 132/2020 regarding the dispute between Mr. Diogo Siston

and PAE Ionikos 1965

Exhibit 16 – The claims of Mr. Diogo Siston and Mr. Ricardo William Faty lodged before FIFA

Disciplinary Committee and the respective reply of the latter