The case involves an appeal by the Iraqi Football Association (IFA) against decisions made by FIFA and the Qatar Football Association (QFA) concerning the eligibility of a player, Emerson, in a World Cup qualifying match between Iraq and Qatar on March 26, 2008, which Qatar won 2-0. The IFA later contested Emerson's eligibility, leading FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee to rule on June 9, 2008, that while Emerson was ineligible, Qatar was not at fault, and FIFA would cover the proceedings' costs. The IFA appealed, but FIFA’s Appeal Committee rejected it on July 9, 2008, due to the IFA’s failure to pay the appeal fee on time. The IFA then sought recourse at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), requesting remedies such as annulling FIFA’s decision, declaring Emerson ineligible, forfeiting the match with a 3-0 win for Iraq, or ordering a replay. Additionally, the IFA sought provisional measures to suspend Qatar’s World Cup qualifier matches pending the CAS’s final judgment.
The CAS outlined three conditions for granting provisional measures: the likelihood of the claim’s success, protection from irreparable harm, and the appellant’s interests outweighing the respondent’s. The IFA argued its case met these criteria, citing sporting and commercial interests like TV rights and ticket sales. FIFA and QFA opposed the request, asserting the appeal had little chance of success due to the untimely fee payment, no irreparable harm existed as matches could be replayed, and broader World Cup interests outweighed the IFA’s claims. The IFA later submitted additional arguments on August 9, 2008, which FIFA and QFA contested as procedurally inadmissible under Article R56 of the CAS Code, which restricts supplementary arguments without exceptional circumstances or party agreement. The Panel ruled the IFA’s late submissions inadmissible, as no such circumstances were proven, while admitting FIFA’s delayed fax due to administrative issues.
The Panel confirmed CAS’s jurisdiction under Article R37 of the CAS Code and emphasized the applicability of FIFA regulations and Swiss law. It found the IFA’s initial filings insufficiently justified the provisional measures, failing to meet the burden of proof. Referencing prior CAS rulings, the Panel stressed the need for applicants to demonstrate irreparable harm and plausibly establish their claims. Consequently, the Panel denied the provisional measures, underscoring procedural adherence and timely submissions. The decision did not prejudge the case’s merits, leaving substantive issues for full examination. The Panel committed to expediting proceedings but rejected the IFA’s request, highlighting the importance of comprehensive initial arguments in arbitration. The case illustrates the complexities of sports arbitration, particularly in eligibility disputes and interim relief criteria.