Brief facts
The creditor club sought to enforce a FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) decision on training compensation before the FIFA DC against the potential successor club.
The FIFA DC determined that, based on the argument and evidence on file, the new club was the sporting successor of the original debtor and, as such, was liable for the debts incurred by the latter - particularly the one stemming from the DRC decision. Therefore, the sporting successor was found to have breached Article 64 of the 2017 FDC.
The new club did not raise the issue of the creditor’s diligence when claiming its debt during the original debtor’s liquidation proceedings in front of the FIFA DC club, and the latter did not consider this matter ex officio (as it did in other known cases).
Football Legal is an independent media publishing football law contents on a daily basis
dedicated to all football law practitioners (lawyers, clubs, federations,
intermediaries, football stakeholders, etc.).
Register today and stay tuned to the latest legal news.
Why not join us?