The case before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) involved a dispute between the Football Inter Club Association (FICA) and the Haitian Football Federation (FHF) regarding a match played on December 30, 2010, between FICA and Accolade de Gros Morne in the Haitian second-division championship. Accolade won the match 1-0, but FICA later discovered that two of Accolade's players, Johny Beaubrun and Roberto Beaubrun, had participated under false identities, rendering them ineligible. FICA filed a complaint with the FHF’s disciplinary commission on January 10, 2011, alleging fraud. The commission confirmed the fraud and imposed sanctions on Accolade, including relegation, but rejected FICA’s request to declare the match forfeited in their favor, citing FICA’s failure to raise objections before the match as required by regulations. The commission argued that FICA had prior knowledge of the fraud, as two of its players had recognized Johny Beaubrun, undermining FICA’s claim of good faith.
FICA appealed to the FHF’s appeals commission, contending that the fraud warranted an automatic forfeit under FIFA’s disciplinary code (Article 55), which mandates a forfeit if an ineligible player participates. FICA argued that the lack of a pre-match objection should not preclude a forfeit, as the fraud was only discovered afterward. The appeals commission upheld the original decision, prompting FICA to take the case to CAS. In its appeal to CAS, FICA sought recognition of the fraud, a 3-0 forfeit victory, adjustment of league standings, promotion to the first division, and reimbursement of legal costs. CAS granted provisional measures, allowing FICA to participate in the first division pending the final decision.
The CAS arbitrator, Prof. Petros Mavroidis, examined whether FICA had acted in good faith by not raising objections before the match. The arbitrator found that FICA likely did not know about the fraud beforehand, as the match sheet was signed only after the match, and there was no conclusive evidence of prior knowledge. Public greetings between players were deemed insufficient to prove FICA’s awareness. The arbitrator concluded that FICA’s delayed complaint filing and lack of a specific request for a forfeit did not indicate bad faith. The decision emphasized that while FHF regulations generally require pre-match objections, flexibility was justified given the practical challenges of lower-division competitions and the seriousness of the fraud.
The arbitrator ruled in favor of FICA, declaring the match forfeited by Accolade with a 3-0 score in FICA’s favor and authorizing FICA’s participation in the first division for the remainder of the 2011 season. The decision highlighted the tension between procedural rules and substantive fraud, underscoring the importance of good faith in procedural compliance. The arbitrator avoided addressing potential conflicts between FHF regulations and FIFA’s disciplinary code, focusing instead on the specific circumstances of the case. The ruling balanced competitive integrity with the potential consequences for other clubs, such as Triomphe, which faced significant sporting and financial harm due to the decision. Ultimately, the case reinforced the principles of fairness and the need to address serious misconduct in sports competitions while respecting procedural requirements.