The case revolves around a dispute between Al-Shabab Club and the Saudi Arabian Football Federation (SAFF) concerning the suspension of player Abdulaziz Nasser Al Saaran and his eligibility to participate in national matches. The conflict stemmed from an incident during an AFC Champions League game on 19 April 2011, where Al Saaran was suspended for six matches by the AFC Disciplinary Committee after spitting at an opponent. The key issue was the application of Article 38(2)(c) of the AFC Disciplinary Code, which mandates that suspensions from AFC competitions carry over to the club’s next match in national competitions if the club is eliminated from the AFC tournament. Al-Shabab sought clarification from SAFF regarding the suspension's applicability to local matches, and SAFF initially confirmed the player’s eligibility. Consequently, Al Saaran played in two local matches. However, after Al-Shabab was eliminated from the AFC Champions League on 24 May 2011, his suspension remained unserved. A protest was filed by Al Ahli when Al Saaran played in a King’s Cup match, leading SAFF to investigate and rule that Al-Shabab forfeited the match with a 3-0 score. Al-Shabab appealed this decision, but the SAFF Appeals Committee upheld the ruling.
The club then took the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that SAFF’s initial confirmation of eligibility created an estoppel, preventing SAFF from later enforcing the suspension. The CAS panel, composed of Stuart McInnes, Michele Bernasconi, and José Juan Pintó, examined the case and rejected the estoppel argument. They noted that Al-Shabab’s request for clarification was vague, and SAFF’s response was equally imprecise, contributing to the confusion. The panel also dismissed the principle of contra proferentem, as the AFC Disciplinary Code’s provision was unambiguous. The CAS upheld SAFF’s decision, confirming the forfeiture and the application of the suspension to national competitions as per AFC rules.
The case highlights the hierarchical structure of football governance, with SAFF bound by AFC and FIFA regulations. The Panel emphasized that AFC sanctions are automatically enforceable at the national level without requiring additional action from member associations. Al-Shabab’s arguments about lack of fault or good faith were dismissed, as the club was aware of the AFC’s disciplinary provisions and had received multiple communications clarifying them. The Panel also rejected the claim that SAFF’s letter constituted authorization for the player’s participation in all future national matches, concluding that the wording was too ambiguous to support an estoppel claim.
Ultimately, the CAS ruling underscored the binding nature of disciplinary sanctions across competitions and the importance of clear communication between clubs and federations. The decision affirmed the automatic application of AFC suspensions to national matches and upheld the sanctions imposed on Al-Shabab for fielding an ineligible player. The case serves as a reminder of the strict enforcement of football regulations and the limited discretion of national associations in implementing confederation-level disciplinary measures.