Attending the BAT Conference in Munich on 17 October 2025 offered valuable insight into current developments in basketball arbitration. One of the discussions that particularly caught attention concerned FIBA’s evolving approach to enforcing BAT awards — especially in relation to the extension of sanctions to new entities or successor clubs.
FIBA’s Concept of Club Succession
Under Article 3-338 of the FIBA Internal Regulations, Book 3 Players and Officials (hereinafter, the “FIBA Rules”) if a “National Member Federation, club, player, coach or agent participating in a BAT arbitration (the “first party”) fails to honour a final award, order or any provisional or conservatory measures (collectively, the “decision”) of BAT or CAS, the party seeking the honouring of such decision award (the “second party”) shall have the right to request that FIBA sanctions the first party”.
Importantly, Article 3-339 b. provides that, at its sole discretion, FIBA may extend such sanctions “to natural or legal persons that are directly or indirectly linked to the first party, either from a legal or a sporting perspective. In particular, such linkage exists if the relevant natural or legal person is, or reasonably appears to be, a legal or sporting successor of the first party, which may include, without limitation, a consideration of the following: its headquarters, stadium, name, team colours, players, coaches, management, ownership, websites, social media channels, and/or public statements”.
In practice, this means that simply establishing a new legal entity may not shield a club from the consequences of its predecessor’s unpaid debts or disciplinary sanctions.
Practical Application of the Club Succession Concept
FIBA and CAS assess successor clubs based on legal and sporting indicators, focusing not merely on formal corporate continuity, but rather on the overall impression of continuity within the basketball community. The following cases illustrate this approach in practice.
A clear example can be found in the CAS Award 2017/A/5050.[1] Specifically, CAS confirmed that the decisive factor is not the legal form or registration details (corporate names, licences, VAT registration numbers), but whether there is a factual and objective link between the entities. The Sole Arbitrator emphasised that aspects such as the perception in the basketball community, public impression, brand, look and feel, team identity and continuity of sporting activity may outweigh differences in corporate structure or registration. The appearance that the new club is a mere continuation of the previous one (through its name, players or local roots) can be sufficient to establish a link under the FIBA Rules.[2]
Similarly, in the case concerning A.O. Ionikos 1965 K.A.E. and Ionikos Basket K.A.E., FIBA considered that, although the new club was established as a separate legal entity, its conduct effectively created an impression that the old club had never ceased to exist. The new club’s name, colours, logo, location and overall presentation were deemed almost identical to the old one, leading FIBA to qualify it as the sporting successor and to extend liability for the predecessor’s outstanding BAT debts.[3]
Finally, reference can be made to the case of Trabzonspor (as discussed during the BAT Conference, Munich 2025), where several overlapping elements pointed towards succession. FIBA reportedly considered: i) the shared legal and organizational identity, ii) overlapping management and sponsorship, iii) shared facilities and communication channels, iv) continuity of fan base and historical heritage, and v) consistent branding and contractual connections (e.g. IP licences, colours, and arena use).[4]
Taken together, these examples show that FIBA adopts a substance-over-form approach. The analysis focuses on how the new club positions itself publicly and operationally, rather than on its formal incorporation documents. Where the overall impression suggests that a club is, in sporting reality, a continuation of another, FIBA may consider such club a successor (and not a new club) and consequently extend the sanctions and obligations arising from previous BAT awards.
Key Takeaways
FIBA’s practice serves as a clear reminder that formal corporate restructuring alone does not shield clubs from their predecessor’s obligations. Attempts to avoid BAT awards through reorganisation or rebranding are unlikely to succeed where the overall impression suggests continuity. Transparency and due diligence remain essential in any club restructuring process. Clubs, investors and agents should therefore carefully assess any potential links to previous entities before entering into new sporting or commercial ventures.
[1] CAS 2017/A/5050 Basketball Club Ticha v. Fédération Internationale de Basketball (FIBA) and Aleksandar Andrejevic, award of 27 October 2017. Available at URL: https://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/5050.pdf
[2] The cited CAS award refers to Article 3-300 of the FIBA Rules, which was applicable at the time the award was rendered. The provisions of the aforementioned article are now incorporated into Articles 3-338 and 3-339 of the FIBA Rules.
[3] Sporting succession in basketball: FIBA applies great flexibility in determining sporting successor, article by Mr. Nilo Effori, legal representative of the players in the relevant case. Available at URL: https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/item/sporting-succession-in-basketball-fiba-applies-great-flexibility-in-determining-sporting-successor#sdfootnote2sym
[4] Presentation: “Update on FIBA’s assistance in the honouring of BAT awards”, Benjamin Schindler (Senior Legal Affairs Manager, FIBA), BAT Conference, Munich, 17 October 2025.