An important aspect of procedure and practice before the CAS, relates to the ability of applicants to seek urgent protective measures, in the form of an application for a Stay of execution of the appealed decision. The legal basis for such application can be identified in Article 183 of Swiss Private International Law and R37 of the CAS Code. The latter, provides that the CAS may, upon request of a party, order preliminary or protective measures. According to CAS practice and jurisprudence (See CAS 2003/O/486; CAS 2013/A/3324; CAS 2013/A/3199; CAS 2010/A/2071. CAS 2001/A/329; CAS 2001/A/324 ), there is a three-stage test that needs to be satisfied for a successful application on such protective measures (provided that the issue of jurisdiction has been settled): The requested measures must be necessary to protect the Applicant from irreparable harm; There must be a likelihood of success on the merits of the claim; The interests of the Applicant in the reques
This is an interesting, unique and controversial area of modern sport that deserves further examination. Football transfers are, of course, not a new phenomenon. A series of important developments, however, such as the modern and increased commercialisation of sport, as well as the implications and consequences of the decision in the Bosman case, have created a complex framework of individuals, regulations and financial opportunities that determine the present situation.
We could all agree that the increasing commercialisation of sport gives rise to a number of opportunities for a quick profit. Football is not different and its commodification and enormous commercial value have created the basis upon which quick deals could be established and millions of pounds could be exchanged between different parties. The purposeful and efficient application of the regulatory framework could ensure the elimination of illegal and immoral activities such as 'tapping up'. But is such application always an appropriate deterrent?