The case revolves around an appeal by the Football Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FFBH) against sanctions imposed by FIFA for improper conduct by its supporters during a World Cup qualifying match between Belgium and Bosnia and Herzegovina on 28 March 2009. The incidents included setting off Bengal lights, smoke bombs, attempts to break stadium fences, and a pitch invasion by a supporter carrying the Bosnian flag, which disrupted the match multiple times. FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee found the FFBH liable under Article 67 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC), which holds member associations strictly liable for their supporters' actions, regardless of fault. The FFBH was fined CHF 50,000, issued a warning, and ordered to cover the proceedings' costs.
The FFBH appealed, arguing it had taken all possible preventive measures, including security planning and cooperation with the Belgian Football Association (BFA). It also claimed many supporters were not Bosnian citizens, making identification difficult, and questioned whether the pitch invader was a genuine Bosnian supporter. The FIFA Appeal Committee dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that under Article 67.2 FDC, visiting associations are strictly liable for their supporters' conduct, irrespective of culpability. The Committee rejected the FFBH’s request for a reduced fine, noting that nationality does not determine fandom.
The case was then brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which upheld FIFA’s decision. The CAS panel clarified that the term "own group of spectators" in Article 67 FDC applies to both club and national team supporters, reinforcing strict liability. The panel also emphasized that CAS lacks the authority to amend FIFA regulations, limiting its role to interpreting and applying them. The CAS concluded that the FFBH was correctly held liable for the supporters' actions, affirming the fine and warning. The decision underscores the stringent accountability placed on football associations for spectator conduct, even without direct fault.
The FFBH further argued that the fine was excessive, particularly for smaller associations, and requested a reduction. However, the panel noted this was the FFBH’s third such offense during the qualifiers, justifying the increased fine as a deterrent. The panel also dismissed the FFBH’s request to limit the scope of FIFA’s warning, affirming FIFA’s discretionary powers under the FDC. The CAS upheld the CHF 50,000 fine and maintained all other sanctions, reinforcing FIFA’s disciplinary framework.
Ultimately, the CAS panel dismissed all of the FFBH’s requests for relief, affirming the legality, reasonableness, and proportionality of FIFA’s disciplinary measures. The decision highlights the principle of strict liability in football governance, ensuring associations remain accountable for their supporters' conduct. The ruling concluded with the FFBH’s appeal being dismissed in its entirety, and the original sanctions remained in effect.