The case involves an appeal by the Qatar Football Association (QFA) against a decision by the FIFA Appeal Committee regarding the fielding of an ineligible player during the preliminary competition for the London 2012 Olympic Football Tournament. The dispute centered on whether the QFA violated eligibility rules by playing a player, Hatim Abdelaziz, who had received two yellow cards in separate matches of the same competition, making him ineligible for the subsequent match under FIFA regulations. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel reviewed the case under Article R57 of the CAS Code, which grants full authority to reassess facts and law without needing to examine procedural errors at the initial level.
The panel emphasized principles of legal interpretation, focusing on the ordinary meaning of the regulations and their harmonious construction within the broader statutory context. While Article 8.1 of the Olympic Football Tournament (OFT) Regulations did not explicitly state that two yellow cards in the same competition rendered a player ineligible, it referenced other FIFA regulations, including Article 17.3 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC), which mandates an automatic suspension for players receiving two cautions in separate matches of the same competition. The panel rejected the QFA's argument that Article 10 FDC (which allows for warnings) applied, as it was too general, whereas Article 55.1 FDC and Article 8.2 OFT Regulations specifically addressed player eligibility and sanctions for fielding ineligible players.
The QFA had enrolled in the competition and participated in matches where the player received a yellow card in the first leg against India on June 19, 2011, and was fielded again in the second leg on June 23, 2011, despite FIFA's confirmation of the caution. The panel concluded that the QFA had breached the eligibility rules, affirming the sanctions imposed by FIFA, which included a fine of CHF 6,000, declaring the match against Oman forfeited (0-3), and ordering the QFA to cover procedural costs. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to regulatory frameworks designed to ensure fair play and maintain the integrity of competitions.
The QFA contested the sanctions, arguing that the competition was governed by AFC regulations, which do not carry forward single yellow cards between stages, and that FIFA failed to notify them of the player’s suspension in time. The panel dismissed these claims, finding that the competition was organized by FIFA in collaboration with the AFC under the OFT Regulations, and the QFA had a duty to ensure player eligibility regardless of notification delays. The panel also rejected the QFA's argument that the sanctions were disproportionate, noting that the rules mandate strict penalties for fielding ineligible players without considering the player's impact on the match.
Ultimately, the CAS panel upheld the FIFA Appeal Committee's decision, reinforcing the strict application of eligibility criteria in international football tournaments. The ruling highlighted the responsibility of member associations to comply with FIFA regulations and the limited scope for appeals based on procedural or mitigating arguments. The case exemplifies the complexities of regulatory enforcement in international football and the importance of clear communication between governing bodies and participating associations. The panel's decision affirmed the disciplinary measures, ensuring the integrity of the competition and the consistent application of FIFA's rules.