The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on September 9, 2010, in a dispute between Telecom Egypt Club and the Egyptian Football Association (EFA) concerning the club's relegation from the Egyptian Premier League due to alleged match manipulation. The case stemmed from a match between El Ittihad and El Mahalla, where Telecom Egypt Club accused El Ittihad’s goalkeeper of deliberately scoring an own goal, affecting the relegation outcome. The EFA’s Competitions Committee dismissed the complaint for insufficient evidence, a decision upheld by the Appeals Committee. Telecom Egypt then appealed to FIFA, which redirected the case to CAS, citing Article 63(1) of the FIFA Statutes. The CAS panel, composed of Dirk-Reiner Martens, Michael Beloff QC, and Rui Botica Santos, examined its jurisdiction under Swiss law, specifically Article 186 of the Federal Code on Private International Law, which grants arbitral tribunals the authority to determine their own jurisdiction. The panel emphasized that arbitration requires mutual agreement, typically established through an arbitration clause in a federation’s statutes, accepted by members through participation or membership. However, the panel noted that FIFA’s recognition of CAS in its statutes does not automatically extend to decisions by national federations unless explicitly referenced in their rules. The panel found that the EFA’s statutes lacked a clear arbitration clause binding the parties to CAS jurisdiction. Telecom Egypt argued that its membership in the EFA and a declaration under Article 11d of the EFA Statutes constituted acceptance of CAS jurisdiction, but the panel rejected this, citing the absence of an explicit offer to arbitrate in the statutes. The panel referenced a similar case involving the Bulgarian Football Association, where a club’s declaration alone was insufficient without a clear arbitral clause in the federation’s rules. The panel dismissed the appeal, ruling that CAS lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of a binding arbitration agreement. The decision underscored the importance of legal certainty and clear drafting in federation statutes to avoid jurisdictional ambiguities. It highlighted the need for sports organizations to explicitly define arbitration mechanisms in their rules to ensure fair and predictable dispute resolution. The case illustrates the complexities of jurisdictional disputes in sports arbitration and the interplay between national federations, international bodies like FIFA, and CAS. The ruling reaffirmed the necessity for clear statutory provisions to prevent conflicts over arbitration jurisdiction and ensure legal certainty for all stakeholders involved in sports disputes.