The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) case involving Salman Butt and the International Cricket Council (ICC) revolved around allegations of match-fixing during the 2010 Test matches between Pakistan and England. The CAS panel upheld the ICC's sanctions against Butt, reinforcing the principle that deviations from minimum sanctions are only permissible in exceptional circumstances, such as disproportionality or irrationality, though the threshold for such exceptions is high. The case underscored the ICC's authority in maintaining cricket's integrity through strict anti-corruption measures.
Butt, then captain of the Pakistan team, was implicated in a spot-fixing scheme orchestrated by his agent, Mazhar Majeed, who arranged for deliberate no-balls to be bowled during the Oval and Lord’s Tests in exchange for money from an undercover reporter. Evidence included recorded conversations and text messages discussing the fixes, though Butt denied direct involvement. The ICC found him guilty under Article 2.1.1 of its Anti-Corruption Code, which prohibits influencing match outcomes, regardless of financial gain. The CAS panel rejected Butt's appeal, emphasizing his responsibility as captain and his association with Majeed, which sufficed to establish a breach.
The scandal erupted when the News of the World published recordings of Majeed's discussions with the undercover reporter. The ICC charged Butt, Mohammad Amir, and Mohammad Asif with breaching its code, leading to a ten-year ban for Butt (with five years suspended), criminal charges in the UK, and a two-and-a-half-year prison sentence, of which he served seven months. Butt appealed to the CAS, arguing the sanction was irrational and disproportionate, citing mitigating factors like spot-fixing's limited impact, external pressure, and personal hardships. The panel dismissed these arguments, noting his leadership role, the severity of the offense, and the absence of exceptional circumstances justifying leniency.
The CAS proceedings involved procedural complexities, including disputes over consolidating appeals and stays pending criminal trials. Ultimately, the panel affirmed the ICC Tribunal's decision, highlighting the importance of deterring corruption and upholding the sport's integrity. The ruling reinforced that sanctions for match-fixing must be severe to reflect the gravity of the offense, even in cases of indirect involvement. The case also illustrated the intersection of sports disciplinary actions and criminal law, with Butt facing consequences in both arenas.
The CAS panel concluded that the five-year ban was appropriate, considering Butt's role and the precedent of lifetime bans in similar cases. It rejected claims of irrationality, accepting the ICC's distinction between match-fixing and lesser offenses like betting. The panel emphasized deference to the ICC's expertise in setting sanctions and found no grounds to reduce the penalty. Butt's appeal was dismissed, and the original sanctions were upheld, marking the end of the legal proceedings against him in April 2013. The case serves as a landmark in anti-corruption efforts in cricket, demonstrating the stringent penalties for violations and the challenges of coordinating parallel legal processes.