| On October 3, 2023, the Court of Arbitration for Sport officially ruled that the Liaoning Shenyang City Football Club is not the "sporting successor" of the Liaoning Hongyun Football Club. Judged from key factors such as history, sporting achievements, football division, club name, team jersey colors, team emblem, players, staff, and public perception, the Liaoning Shenyang City Football Club is obviously not the "sporting successor" of the Liaoning Hongyun Football Club. In order to understand and solve the legal issues of sporting succession in the context of globalization, this paper, through the methods of literature review and case analysis, combined with the CAS arbitration on the Liaoning Shenyang City Football Club, reveals that there are still some problems in identification of "sports successor" in current arbitration practice, namely the ambiguity of the definition of "sporting successor" and the neglect of subjective elements, as well as the resulting problem of "different judgments in the similar case". In response to these problems, this paper proposes that the definition of "sporting ssuccessor" should be added to the relevant rules; that the subjective factors of the suspected "sporting successor" should be comprehensively judged from two aspects: whether the suspected "sporting successor" attempts to avoid the balance sheet of the "old club" and whether the suspected "sporting successor" directly or indirectly shapes the image of the "sporting successor" of the "old club" among the public; that the sports entity which abuses its rights to evade legal or contractual obligations should undoubtedly be punished; and that meanwhile CAS should establish and improve a mechanism for guiding and withdrawing from the international sports arbitration precedent bank in order to promote consistency and fairness in awards, including "sporting successor" cases. |
沪公网安备 31010402002917号