Summary: 1. Introduction. – 2. Methodology. – 3. Analysis of Recent CAS and SFT Cases Involving Latvian Clubs. – 3.1. CAS 2024/A/10627 Valmiera FC v. Latvian Football Federation. – 3.2. The FK Liepāja cases SFT 4A_608/2024, SFT 4A_612/2024, and SFT 4A_614/2024. – 3.3. Comparative and Doctrinal Observations. – 4. Analysis of Recent CAS Cases Involving Ukrainian Clubs and Players. – 4.1. CAS 2023/A/9443 Anatoliy Tymoshchuk v. Ukrainian Association of Football (UAF). – 4.2. CAS 2023/A/10091 Karpaty FC LLC v FIFA & HNK Cibalia Vinkovci & FC Karpaty Halych. – 4.3. CAS 2021/A/7866 Taras Durai v. Ukrainian Association of Football. – 4.4. Comparative and Doctrinal Observations. – 5. Landmark CAS Cases: Broader Comparative Context. – 6. Discussion. – 7. Conclusion.
Background: Eastern European football faces unique legal challenges arising from the intersection of international sports law, club governance, and cross-border disputes. Despite the growing importance of regional leagues, the legal framework for resolving conflicts, especially in transfers, sporting succession, and contractual enforcement, remains underexplored. This study addresses the gap by systematically analysing how recent Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decisions and national federation regulations shape dispute resolution in Eastern European football and assessing the extent to which these structures protect clubs, players, and federations in practice.
Results and Conclusions: The analysis reveals several key findings. First, CAS jurisprudence increasingly applies the doctrine of sporting succession in ways that impose heavy financial liabilities on acquiring clubs, often without adequate procedural safeguards. Second, enforcement of CAS awards in domestic courts is uneven across Eastern Europe, with divergent interpretations of jurisdiction, public policy, and res judicata. Third, national association rules often lack clarity in dispute-resolution pathways, leaving ambiguities in appeal rights and remedial mechanisms. Fourth, despite EU instruments (e.g. Regulation 1215/2012, Rome I), their use in sports‐related contract disputes is marginal due to the perceived autonomy of sports law. These findings point to obstacles in predictability, transparency, and enforceability.
FUNDINGThe author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and or publication of this article. The article was written as part of the project “Internal consolidation of RSU and external consolidation of RSU with LASE” (No. 5,2,1,1.i.0/2/24/I/CFLA/005), “Building the legal framework of European Sport: intersection of Sports governance and Lex Sportiva” (RSU/LSPA-PA-2024/1-0005) financed within the framework of the European Union Recovery and Resilience Facility and the state budget.