The case involves Foolad Mobarakeh Sepahan FC appealing a decision by the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) concerning the fielding of an ineligible player, Ahmadi Rahman, during the 2011 AFC Champions League. Rahman had received two cautions while playing for Piroozi Athletic in the group stage before transferring to Foolad and participating in a knockout match against Al Sadd. Al Sadd protested, arguing Rahman was ineligible due to accumulated cautions. The AFC Disciplinary Committee ruled that Foolad violated Article 55 of the AFC Disciplinary Code, imposing sanctions including forfeiting the match (3-0 to Al Sadd), a fine of at least USD 1,000, and a one-match suspension for Rahman. Foolad appealed to the AFC Appeals Committee, which upheld the decision, prompting the club to take the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS panel examined the case based on written submissions, focusing on whether Article 38(2)(c) of the AFC Disciplinary Code (pertaining to match suspensions for expulsions) applied, as Rahman had only received cautions. The panel found this provision irrelevant. Additionally, Article 69(g) of the AFC Champions League Regulations placed responsibility on clubs and national associations to monitor player eligibility, including suspensions and cautions. The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction under Article R47 of its Code and Article 61.1 of the AFC Statutes, as both parties agreed to its authority. The appeal was filed within the 21-day limit required by the CAS Code and AFC Statutes.
Foolad sought to overturn the AFC decision and requested compensation for lost prize money and travel subsidies. However, the panel upheld the AFC's sanctions, emphasizing clubs' obligations to ensure player eligibility and clarifying the scope of disciplinary provisions. The appellant argued that Rahman's suspension was served in an Iranian Pro-League match, but the panel rejected this, stating suspensions must be served in the same competition where infractions occurred. Foolad also claimed a regulatory loophole, suggesting Rahman's transfer nullified his cautions, but the panel dismissed this, noting suspensions are tied to the player, not the club. The appellant's assertion of being misled by the AFC was also rejected, as the responsibility for monitoring eligibility lies with the club.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld the AFC Appeals Committee's decision, concluding Rahman was ineligible to play. The sanctions—forfeiting the match and imposing a fine—were deemed justified under the AFC Disciplinary Code. The CAS affirmed the AFC's decision, dismissing the appeal and reinforcing the importance of regulatory compliance in football. The ruling underscores the role of CAS in resolving such disputes and the necessity for clubs to adhere to eligibility rules.