The case involves Mohamed Bin Hammam, a former FIFA Executive Committee member and President of the Asian Football Confederation, who appealed a lifetime ban imposed by FIFA due to allegations of bribery during his 2011 campaign for the FIFA presidency. The accusations centered on cash gifts totaling $40,000 each distributed to officials of the Caribbean Football Union (CFU) during a meeting in Trinidad and Tobago, allegedly to secure votes for Bin Hammam’s candidacy. The funds, initially presented as originating from the CFU, were later claimed by Jack Warner, a FIFA official, to have come from Bin Hammam. FIFA’s investigation, led by Chuck Blazer, concluded the payments were bribes, leading to Bin Hammam’s provisional suspension and eventual lifetime ban by the FIFA Ethics Committee.
Bin Hammam appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing FIFA violated due process under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Swiss law. He contended FIFA failed to provide sufficient evidence linking him directly to the cash distribution or proving his intent to bribe. The CAS Panel reviewed the case de novo, independently assessing the evidence under the "comfortable satisfaction" standard, which requires proof sufficient to establish personal conviction without reaching the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt." The Panel found FIFA’s investigation lacked thoroughness, particularly in tracing the money’s origin or examining CFU financial records. Key witnesses, including Warner and Blazer, refused to testify, and their prior statements were deemed unreliable due to inconsistencies and lack of cross-examination.
The Panel acknowledged circumstantial evidence suggesting Bin Hammam provided the funds but found no direct proof he intended them as bribes. Alternative explanations, such as Warner independently distributing the money without Bin Hammam’s knowledge, remained plausible. The Panel also criticized FIFA for prematurely closing investigations into Warner after his resignation, leaving critical gaps in the evidence. Consequently, CAS annulled FIFA’s ban, ruling the allegations were not substantiated to the required legal standard. However, the Panel emphasized its decision did not absolve Bin Hammam of all ethical concerns and left open the possibility of reopening the case if new evidence emerges.
The case highlighted systemic issues in FIFA’s governance, including procedural shortcomings in disciplinary proceedings and the challenges of enforcing accountability in international football. It underscored the importance of direct evidence and due process in high-stakes disciplinary cases, particularly where severe sanctions like lifetime bans are imposed. The ruling reaffirmed CAS’s role in ensuring fairness and legal rigor in sports arbitration while leaving unresolved questions about corruption within FIFA. The outcome demonstrated the difficulties of proving bribery in the absence of clear, direct evidence and the need for more robust investigative mechanisms in sports governance.