Marc Cavaliero and Francis Berney analyse in the latest issue of Football Legal Swiss Federal Tribunal decision 4A_180/2025, which upheld a Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) award in which the tribunal declined jurisdiction over a claim brought by an Argentinian agent against an Italian club. The decision is based on the principle that, under Swiss law, sporting succession does not in itself allow an arbitration clause to be extended to a third party that did not sign the relevant contract.
The agent’s appeal relied on two grounds. First, he challenged the finding that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction, arguing that the arbitration clause should have been extended to the alleged sporting successor of the original contracting party. Second, he alleged a violation of his right to be heard, maintaining that the arbitral tribunal had failed to address substantive arguments supporting that extension.
The Swiss Federal Tribunal rejected both arguments. It first held that the concept of sporting succession, although firmly established in the lex sportiva and codified in FIFA regulations, is unknown to Swiss law and cannot, by itself, justify extending an arbitration clause to a non-signatory under Article 178(2) of the Swiss Private International Law Act (PILA).
The Court also noted that extending an arbitration clause to a non-signatory on the basis of the successor club’s conduct remains theoretically possible, but only where that conduct creates a clear and unequivocal appearance of an intention to be bound by the clause. The Swiss Federal Tribunal deliberately sets a high threshold for this.
The full analysis is available in Football Legal →