The case involves a dispute between Al-Wehda Club and the Saudi Arabian Football Federation (SAFF) regarding the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to hear an appeal against a disciplinary decision by SAFF. The dispute stemmed from a match between Al-Wehda and Al-Taawon FC, where both teams were fined for delaying the game, with suspicions of collusion to manipulate match outcomes. The SAFF Disciplinary Committee imposed fines of 300,000 Saudi Riyals on each club and deducted three points from their league standings. Al-Wehda appealed the decision through SAFF's internal channels, but the Appeal Committee upheld the ruling. The club then sought recourse at CAS, arguing that SAFF's statutes and correspondence implied CAS jurisdiction.
The CAS panel, composed of Luigi Fumagalli, Jirayr Habibian, and Michele Bernasconi, examined whether CAS had jurisdiction under the Code of Sports-related Arbitration and FIFA Statutes. For CAS to hear an appeal, either the sports federation's statutes must explicitly recognize CAS as an appellate body, or a specific arbitration agreement must exist between the parties. The panel found that SAFF's statutes did not provide for CAS appeals in this context, nor was there a written arbitration agreement. The panel referenced CAS jurisprudence and Swiss law, emphasizing that general references to FIFA rules are insufficient to establish CAS jurisdiction unless national federation statutes explicitly adopt such provisions.
Al-Wehda argued that SAFF's statutes implicitly recognized CAS jurisdiction, citing Articles 10, 13, and 64 of the SAFF Statutes, which require compliance with FIFA and AFC regulations. The club also claimed a clerical error in Article 64, suggesting it should refer to SAFF rather than FIFA. However, the panel rejected this argument due to lack of evidence. The club further pointed to letters and statements from SAFF officials as evidence of an arbitration agreement, but the panel found these communications did not meet the formal requirements under Swiss law.
The panel concluded that CAS lacked jurisdiction, as SAFF's statutes did not explicitly provide for CAS appeals in non-doping matters, and no valid arbitration agreement existed. The decision aligns with precedents emphasizing the need for clear statutory language or formal agreements to establish CAS jurisdiction. The case highlights the importance of procedural compliance in sports disputes and the limitations of indirect references to higher governing bodies like FIFA. Ultimately, the panel dismissed Al-Wehda's appeal, reinforcing that national federations must explicitly incorporate CAS jurisdiction in their rules for it to apply.