Facts
Parties and courts: The appellants are the Federation [A.] (appellant 1, national football federation of the Republic of [M.] ) and two players of mmm nationality, [B.] (appellant 2) and [C.] (appellant 3). The respondent is the Confederation [D.] (umbrella body of African national football federations, seated in Egypt, organiser of the U17 Africa Cup of Nations, U17 AFCON). The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seated in Lausanne, issued the challenged awards on 4 October 2019 (CAS 2019/A/6348 and 2019/A/6351). The Swiss Federal Supreme Court, First Civil Law Court, ruled on 29 April 2020 (cases 4A_548/2019 and 4A_550/2019).
Background: The final phase of the U17 AFCON took place in April 2019 in Tanzania. The [M.] national team finished second in Group B and qualified for the FIFA U17 World Cup (U17 WC). On 19 April 2019, the Federation [E.] lodged a protest against the participation of [B.] and [C.] , considering that they were too old. [D.] opened an investigation into the falsification of the dates of birth appearing on their passports.
Disciplinary decisions: On 12 May 2019, the Disciplinary Committee of [D.] declared the two players ineligible, excluded the team and annulled its results, prevented appellant 1 from representing [D.] at the 2019 U17 WC, banned appellant 1 from the next two editions of the U17 AFCON, prohibited the players from any football-related activity for two years, ordered the restitution of the medals (financial penalty of USD 20,000 in default), reinstated [N.] as the fourth representative at the U17 WC, sanctioned the person responsible for entering the dates of birth, and imposed on appellant 1 a fine of USD 100,000 (of which USD 50,000 suspended for four years).
On 20 June 2019, the Executive Committee of [D.] confirmed this decision, with the exception of point 6, and approved the reinstatement of [N.] (team ranked third in Group B), which became the fourth team representing [D.] at the U17 WC in Brazil. On 23 June 2019, the Appeals Committee confirmed the decision of the Disciplinary Committee.
Arbitral proceedings: The appellants brought appeals before the CAS against the decisions of the Executive Committee and the Appeals Committee, directed solely against [D.] . A hearing was held on 6 September 2019. The CAS dismissed the appeals on the ground that they should also have been directed against the Federation [E.] , whose place at the U17 WC was directly affected and which had not been joined to the proceedings. The CAS also recognised that the appellants had a legitimate interest in challenging the decision of the Executive Committee, as the disciplinary sanctions could remain in effect.
Appeal to the Federal Supreme Court: The appellants request the joinder of the cases and the annulment of the awards. The respondent seeks dismissal of the appeal as inadmissible (4A_548/2019) or partial inadmissibility (4A_550/2019), and alternatively dismissal. The CAS seeks dismissal.
Considerations
Joinder and admissibility: The two proceedings involve the same parties and the same set of facts; they are joined. The respondent disputes the legitimate interest (art. 76 para. 1 let. b FSCA) because the tournaments have ended. According to case law, there is in principle no interest in challenging the non-admission to a competition already held, unless the award upholds financial or disciplinary sanctions whose effects persist. Since the disciplinary sanctions confirmed by the Executive Committee may remain in effect, the interest is recognised; the question may nonetheless be left open, as the appeals are in any event dismissed.
Legal framework: The seat of the CAS being in Lausanne and the parties having neither domicile nor seat in Switzerland, Chapter 12 of the PILA applies (art. 176 para. 1 and 2 PILA). The appeals are admissible under arts. 190-192 PILA (art. 77 para. 1 let. a FSCA). The grounds for appeal are exhaustive (art. 190 para. 2 PILA) and only substantiated complaints are examined (art. 77 para. 3 FSCA).
Passive standing and right to be heard (art. 190 para. 2 let. d PILA): The CAS held that passive standing, governed on a supplementary basis by Swiss law, in principle belongs only to the federation that issued the disciplinary decision, unless the decision also grants rights to a third party. A request seeking the allocation of a place to the detriment of a third party requires that third party to be joined as co-respondent. The appellants had excluded dissociating the disciplinary aspects from the other aspects, so that their appeals, directed solely against [D.] , could not succeed. The right to be heard does not require an international award to be reasoned, but the arbitral tribunal must…