CAS 2025/A/11192 – FC Girondins de Bordeaux v. Real Sporting de Gijón SAD
Factual background
The dispute arose from a transfer agreement concluded on 1 August 2023 between FC Girondins de Bordeaux and Real Sporting de Gijón for the transfer of the player Pedro Díaz. The agreement provided for a total transfer fee of EUR 2.25 million, payable in three instalments. After payment of the first instalment, FC Bordeaux failed to pay the second instalment of EUR 800,000 due on 15 July 2024. Following a formal default notice, Real Sporting de Gijón declared the loss of the benefit of the payment schedule and claimed the accelerated balance, contractual penalty, and interest.
In January 2025, the FIFA Football Tribunal issued a confirmation letter recording that both parties had accepted a proposed settlement, ordering FC Bordeaux to pay EUR 1.5 million plus interest and a contractual penalty of EUR 75,000, and warning of potential sporting sanctions in the event of non-payment. FC Bordeaux lodged an appeal before CAS seeking, not to dispute the debt, but to challenge the regulatory consequences of non-payment, relying primarily on its judicial reorganisation proceedings in France.
Alleged error in the FIFA Legal Portal
A central procedural issue was whether the appeal had been filed within the mandatory 21-day time limit under Article 50 of the FIFA Statutes. FC Bordeaux argued that it had not been properly notified of the FIFA decision on 24 January 2025, the date on which it was uploaded to the FIFA Legal Portal. According to the appellant, an error in FIFA’s online system—specifically the existence of multiple access credentials—prevented its management from accessing the decision until early February 2025. On that basis, FC Bordeaux contended that the appeal deadline should be calculated from the later date of actual awareness.
CAS rejected this argument. The Sole Arbitrator held that notification occurred when the decision entered the appellant’s “sphere of control,” namely upon its upload to the FIFA Legal Portal. The award emphasises that, under the FIFA Procedural Rules, clubs are under a strict obligation to monitor the Legal Portal daily and bear the risk of internal administrative or technical failures. The appellant failed to prove that access to the portal was objectively impossible for reasons beyond its control, and mere allegations of system confusion or mismanagement were insufficient to rebut the presumption of valid notification.
Strict preclusive effect of missed deadlines
Having determined that notification occurred on 24 January 2025, CAS concluded that the 21-day time limit expired on 14 February 2025. As the Statement of Appeal was filed on 17 February 2025, the appeal was inadmissible.
In a particularly clear statement of principle, CAS reaffirmed that failure to comply with appeal deadlines has an automatic and irreversible effect. At paragraph 168 of the award, the Sole Arbitrator stressed:
“[f]ailure to comply with the time limit to appeal results in the loss of the party’s substantive claim. The expiration of the time limit has a preclusive effect that should be controlled on the basis of the facts pleaded and proved by the parties and which CAS panels have no discretion to extend. The consequence for the statement of appeal not being filed timely is an automatic, self-executing one where the respondent’s silence, inactivity or even acquiescence cannot change.”
This passage confirms that admissibility is a matter of public procedural order in CAS arbitration. Neither equitable considerations, nor the opposing party’s conduct, nor the seriousness of the consequences can cure a late filing.
Significance for sports law and practice
This award is a timely reminder that procedural discipline is paramount in international sports arbitration, particularly in an era of fully digitalised dispute resolution. CAS makes clear that clubs must organise themselves to comply with FIFA’s electronic communication system and that failures in internal governance or digital oversight will not excuse non-compliance.
More broadly, the decision illustrates the structural separation in sports law between procedural access to justice and substantive arguments, including those based on insolvency or financial distress. Regardless of the potential merits of FC Bordeaux’s insolvency-based defence, CAS never reached those issues because procedural preclusion operated first and decisively.
For clubs, federations, and practitioners, the message is unequivocal: missing a CAS deadline is fatal, and digital notification systems are treated as fully equivalent to traditional service for the purposes of triggering appeal time limits.
The full text of the decision can be found at:
https://www.tas-cas.org/en/jurisprudence/recent-decisions.html