Swiss Arbitration Decisions

This dispute arose between a national football federation, two players (the Appellants) and the African Football Confederation (CAF, Respondent) over the African Cup of Nations U17 (CAN U17), an African football tournament organized at the continental level for players under 17, whose first and second teams qualify for the FIFA U-17 World Cup.

This dispute arose between a national football federation, two players (the Appellants) and the African Football Confederation (CAF, Respondent) over the African Cup of Nations U17 (CAN U17), an African football tournament organized at the continental level for players under 17, whose first and second teams qualify for the FIFA U-17 World Cup.

The case involved three license agreements for TV rights, entered into in 2009 and 2010. The licensors started arbitration proceedings in the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and on December 20, 2012, the CAS Panel consisting of Hans Nater as sole arbitrator rejected the claim while partially upholding a counterclaim by the licensee.

The licensors appealed to the Federal Tribunal and the following points are of some interest in the opinion:

The case involved a contract in which three parties agreed to make their respective contributions with a view to acquiring a large number of shares in a company. One of the parties failed to make its contribution and the contract contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration in Lugano under the Swiss Rules of International Arbitration.

The case involved a dispute between a Mexican football club and some Argentine coaches. In 2009, they entered into an employment contract with the club and the contract had dispute resolution clause, yet confusingly providing for jurisdiction of a state court as well as jurisdiction of the Mexican Football Federation.

The case involved a dispute between a Dutch foundation, an American company and various other players, arising from an investment agreement allegedly breached by one of the parties. The state court in California was seized first and this produced a default judgment in 2007 ordering the restitution of the amount invested and awarding punitive damages.

C.________ had requested the payment of a fee following the brokering of a settlement agreement with a state petroleum company on behalf of A.________ and B._________. The latter companies refused to pay and an arbitration with its seat in Geneva was initiated under the Swiss Rules, before three arbitrators. C.________ partially prevailed, and the Defendants appealed to the Federal Tribunal, citing violations of their right to be heard and a lack of equal treatment of the parties.