The case involves a dispute between Tema Youth Football Club (Tema) and the Ghana Football Association (GFA) over disciplinary sanctions imposed for fielding an unqualified player. The controversy began when Tema registered and played a player, E., who was allegedly still under contract with another club, Accra Grade Olympic (Accra). The GFA’s Disciplinary Committee ruled that Tema had violated regulations by using an unqualified player, resulting in forfeited matches and a points deduction. Tema appealed to the GFA’s Appeals Committee, which upheld the decision and added further penalties. Dissatisfied, Tema took the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking to annul the decision, revoke the penalties, and obtain provisional measures to suspend the sanctions and allow participation in the upcoming league season.
The CAS addressed jurisdictional questions, noting that FIFA’s statutes do not automatically grant CAS jurisdiction unless there is explicit consent to arbitration. The panel stressed that each case must be evaluated individually to determine if parties have genuinely agreed to arbitration. The dispute revolved around the player’s contractual status, with Tema claiming a settlement agreement with Accra, though no evidence was provided. The GFA’s disciplinary actions were based on rules prohibiting the use of unqualified players. Tema’s appeal to the CAS included requests for provisional measures to delay sanctions and permit league participation pending a final decision. The CAS process involved exchanges between the parties regarding arbitrator selection and provisional measures, with the GFA contesting CAS jurisdiction.
The CAS panel examined whether the GFA’s statutes or FIFA’s regulations implicitly granted jurisdiction to the CAS. It concluded that while FIFA encourages arbitration, it does not require national federations to accept CAS jurisdiction unless explicitly stated in their own regulations. The panel referenced previous CAS rulings, such as the Cole Case, which established that FIFA statutes do not automatically confer CAS jurisdiction unless national federations incorporate such provisions. The panel also considered whether the GFA’s statutes contained errors or implied consent to arbitration but found no supporting evidence. It reviewed a Swiss Federal Court judgment but determined that each case must be assessed individually for genuine consent to arbitration.
Ultimately, the CAS ruled it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as neither the GFA’s statutes nor FIFA’s regulations included a binding arbitration clause. As a result, the appeal and the request for provisional measures were dismissed. The CAS emphasized that its decision was based solely on written submissions, as no hearing on jurisdiction was necessary. The final ruling, issued on November 30, 2009, rejected all claims and motions submitted by the parties, concluding that the CAS had no authority to adjudicate the dispute. The case highlights the complexities of contractual disputes in football and the procedural steps in CAS arbitration, particularly the need for clear consent to arbitration and the evaluation of provisional measures. The decision underscores the importance of jurisdictional clarity in sports arbitration and leaves the dispute unresolved through this legal avenue.