Journal of Cyber Law (JOCL)

Journal of Cyber Law (JOCL)

Digital Proceedings and Cybersecurity in the FIFA Football Tribunal

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Saeed Mohammadpour navidan 1
Ali Hajipour Kondroud 2
Yousef Molaei 3
Adel Abbasi 3
1 PhD Student, Department of civil Law, Ur.C. Branch, Islamic Azad University, Urmia, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Department of public Law, Ur.C. Branch, Islamic Azad University, Urmia, Iran
3 Assistant Professor, Department of civil Law, Ur.C. Branch, Islamic Azad University, Urmia, Iran
10.22054/jocl.2025.8563.9782
Abstract
Digitalisation has transformed football dispute resolution from paper correspondence and in-person communication into electronic filing, online exchange of pleadings, platform-based notification, and digital case management. In this environment, an electronic system is not merely a channel for transmitting information. It determines when an act is recorded, which document formats are acceptable, how a user is identified, who may access or modify case information, and whether the procedural history can later be reconstructed. The issue is particularly significant for the FIFA Football Tribunal because the parties to football disputes are frequently located in different countries and because the credibility of the Tribunal’s decisions depends not only on substantive and procedural rules but also on the integrity of the communication infrastructure and the reliability of recorded data. The main research question is: How do electronic systems and cybersecurity requirements in the proceedings of the FIFA Football Tribunal affect the guarantee of fair proceedings and the validity of the Tribunal’s decisions? The hypothesis is that electronic systems strengthen the legitimacy of proceedings and decisions only when they operate together with safeguards for data integrity, confidentiality, authentication, availability, technical logging, and effective remedies. Without these safeguards, the same technology may weaken the right to be heard and the reliability of procedural acts. This article uses a descriptive-analytical and comparative method. To answer the research question, it examines the procedural rules of the Football Tribunal, the regulations governing the status and transfer of players, official reports, relevant Court of Arbitration for Sport jurisprudence, legislation concerning electronic evidence, cybersecurity standards, and Persian and non-Persian academic literature. The findings demonstrate that filing a claim, submitting pleadings, uploading evidence, serving notifications, calculating time limits, and monitoring a case do not remain merely technical operations when the proceedings depend on a digital platform. Each operation may affect access to justice, the reasonable opportunity to present a case, and the ability to challenge an adverse procedural consequence. Electronic data also possesses adequate evidentiary value only when its source, creator, time of creation, alteration history, chain of custody, and independent verifiability can be established. System outages, compromised accounts, data alteration or deletion, unauthorised disclosure, and unreliable audit records may affect procedural deadlines, attribution of conduct, the opportunity to respond to the opposing party’s evidence, and the validity of the final decision. The analysis of Court of Arbitration for Sport jurisprudence further indicates that the mere presence of information in a platform cannot replace proof of the legal elements of a claim or the parties’ effective participation in the proceedings. The article concludes that cybersecurity should be recognised in FIFA procedural rules as a component of the guarantees of fair proceedings. The proposed framework therefore requires a defined notion of a security incident, prompt incident reporting, preservation of technical records, suspension or extension of time limits, an alternative communication channel, risk-based authentication, differentiated access controls, contractor auditing, and clear rules on responsibility and remediation. The framework connects digital efficiency with legal oversight and practical protection of the parties.
Keywords
football dispute resolution
electronic systems
cybersecurity
digital evidence
fair proceedings
Subjects

مقاله‌ها

شریف‌زاده خرم، امیرحسین. (۱۴۰۴). بررسی اعتبار و قابلیت استناد ادله الکترونیک تولیدشده توسط الگوریتم‌ها در نظام دادرسی و حقوق سایبری. حقوق سایبری،  2(1)، 49-34.

شعاعی، مرتضی، و اعراب شیبانی، حجت. (۱۴۰۱). درآمدی بر حل‌وفصل اختلافات ورزش فوتبال در نظام ایران و بین‌الملل. تحقیقات حقوقی بین‌المللی، 55(15)، 363-381

صادقی‌نشاط، امیر. (۱۳۹۳). اعتبارسنجی اسناد الکترونیک. پژوهش حقوق خصوصی، 2(7)، 61-64

قرایی، تکتم، هدایی، علیرضا، و اسحاقی، محمد. (۱۴۰۰). امکان‌سنجی استنادپذیری ادله الکترونیک در فقه، با نگاهی به قانون تجارت الکترونیک ایران. فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، 54(21)، 46-61

قوانین

قانون تجارت الکترونیکی. (۱۳۸۲). جمهوری اسلامی ایران.

References

Books

Blackaby, N., Partasides, C., Redfern, A., & Hunter, M. (2022). Redfern and Hunter on international arbitration (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Born, G. B. (2021). International commercial arbitration (3rd ed., 3 vols.). Kluwer Law International.

Katsh, E., & Rabinovich-Einy, O. (2017). Digital justice: Technology and the internet of disputes. Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190464585.001.0001

Susskind, R. (2019). Online courts and the future of justice. Oxford University Press.

Articles

Chatterjee, P., Singhania, A., & Sharma, Y. S. (2024). Cybersecurity in arbitration: Balancing protection, privacy and regulation in the digital age. Asian Dispute Review, 26(1), 29–36.

Chen, L. (2024). Will virtual hearings remain in post-pandemic international arbitration? International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 37(3), 829–849. doi: 10.1007/s11196-023-10054-7

Ferreira, D. B., & Gromova, E. A. (2023). Electronic evidence in arbitration proceedings: Empirical analysis and recommendations. Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 20, 30–39.

Ferreira, D. B., & Gromova, E. A. (2024). Digital evidence: The admissibility of leaked and hacked evidence in arbitration proceedings. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 37(3), 903–922. doi: 10.1007/s11196-023-10014-1

Gómez-Moreno, J. P. (2024). Advocacy for online proceedings: Features of the digital world and their role in how communication is shaped in remote international arbitration. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 37(3), 865–885. doi: 10.1007/s11196-023-10041-y

Łągiewska, M., & Bhatia, V. K. (2024a). International arbitration in the digital world. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 37, 821–827. doi: 10.1007/s11196-024-10135-1

Łągiewska, M. (2024b). New technologies in international arbitration: A game-changer in dispute resolution? International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 37(3), 851–864. doi: 10.1007/s11196-023-10070-7

Latifah, E., Bajrektarevic, A. H., & Imanullah, M. N. (2019). The shifting of alternative dispute resolution: From traditional form to the online dispute resolution. Brawijaya Law Journal, 6(1), 27–37. doi: 10.21776/ub.blj.2019.006.01.02

Moreira, J. I., & Zhang, L. (2024). Assessing credibility in online arbitration hearings: Determining facts and justice by Zoom. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 37(3), 887–901. doi: 10.1007/s11196-023-10046-7

Rabinovich-Einy, O., & Katsh, E. (2014). Digital justice: Reshaping boundaries in an online dispute resolution environment. International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, 1(1), 5–36.

Teramura, N., & Trakman, L. (2024). Confidentiality and privacy of arbitration in the digital era: Pies in the sky? Arbitration International, 40(3), 277–306. doi: 10.1093/arbint/aiae017

Laws, Regulations, and Related Instruments

Court of Arbitration for Sport. (2025). Code of sports-related arbitration.

Fédération Internationale de Football Association. (2026). Procedural rules governing the Football Tribunal: January 2026 edition.

International Council for Commercial Arbitration, New York City Bar Association, & CPR Institute. (2022). Protocol on cybersecurity in international arbitration.

Reports and Frameworks

Fédération Internationale de Football Association, & Court of Arbitration for Sport. (2026). CAS & Football annual report 2025.

Fédération Internationale de Football Association. (2025). Football Tribunal report 2024/25.

National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024). The NIST cybersecurity framework 2.0.

OECD. (2024). Online dispute resolution framework.

Awards and Judicial Decisions

Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). (2025, May 23). CAS 2024/A/10427: Right to Dream FC v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), arbitral award. Sole Arbitrator: Mark Andrew Hovell. Lausanne, Switzerland: Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). (2025, April 17). CAS 2024/A/10551: Espérance Sportive Troyes Aube Champagne (ESTAC) v. Torino Football Club S.P.A. & Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), arbitral award. Sole Arbitrator: Manfred Nan. Lausanne, Switzerland: Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Swiss Federal Supreme Court, First Civil Law Court. (2013, August 5). X.________ SA v. Y.________ SA, Judgment 4A_214/2013. Subject: Internal arbitration; right to be heard; arbitrariness. Lausanne, Switzerland.

 

Journal of Cyber Law (JOCL)
Volume 3, Issue 1 - Serial Number 9
Winter 2026
Pages 177-197