The case involves a dispute between Al Masry SC and the Egyptian Football Association (EFA) following violent incidents during a football match between Al Masry and Al Ahly on 1 February 2012, which resulted in 74 deaths. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was tasked with reviewing the EFA's disciplinary sanctions against Al Masry for the conduct of its supporters. The CAS panel addressed key legal issues, including its jurisdiction, the strict liability of clubs for supporter behavior under Article 67(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code, and the applicability of force majeure. The panel confirmed its jurisdiction despite the EFA's non-participation in the arbitration, emphasizing the need to verify jurisdiction when a respondent fails to engage. It upheld the principle of strict liability, which holds clubs accountable for their supporters' conduct regardless of the club's fault, aiming to deter violent behavior by ensuring clubs take responsibility for stadium safety. The panel rejected Al Masry's argument of force majeure, stating that organizational failures did not absolve the club of liability, as the primary targets of sanctions are the supporters themselves.
The tragic events of 1 February 2012 were marked by multiple security failures, including inadequate police deployment and violations of stadium safety protocols. Witness testimonies highlighted systemic lapses, such as unchecked spectator entry and improperly secured stadium gates. Despite Al Masry's repeated warnings about its inability to inspect spectators, the league resumed play, culminating in the deadly riot. The EFA subsequently dissolved its board, and criminal charges were filed against several individuals, including police officers and Al Masry supporters. The EFA imposed sanctions on both clubs, citing misconduct by players, coaches, and supporters. Al Masry was penalized for its supporters' violent actions, while Al Ahly faced sanctions for its supporters' use of offensive banners and fireworks. The CAS upheld the EFA's decision, reinforcing the strict liability framework and dismissing Al Masry's defenses.
Al Masry appealed the EFA's decision to CAS, seeking a stay of the sanctions, arguing irreparable harm. The CAS granted deadlines for submissions, and Al Masry eventually filed its appeal brief. The EFA failed to provide timely responses or objections throughout the process. A hearing was scheduled, but the EFA did not participate or submit required documents. Al Masry's appeal argued that it could not be held liable for the incident, citing failures by the Egyptian Ministry of Interior in security management. The CAS ultimately rejected Al Masry's request for provisional measures, finding no evidence of irreparable harm. The proceedings highlighted procedural delays, lack of engagement from the EFA, and Al Masry's efforts to challenge the sanctions based on external security failures.
The CAS panel examined whether Al Masry could be held liable for organizational failures during the match, such as inadequate crowd control and security breaches. Testimonies indicated lapses in stadium security, but the panel concluded that the club could not be solely responsible for these violations. However, the panel affirmed the broader applicability of strict liability for supporter conduct, referencing a landmark CAS decision which upheld the compliance of such rules with Swiss law. The panel emphasized that clubs bear responsibility for supporters' misconduct to ensure adherence to regulatory standards, even if the clubs themselves are not at fault. This approach ensures that governing bodies can enforce discipline indirectly, as they lack direct authority over individual supporters.
The panel also rejected the club's argument of force majeure, stating that security failures did not justify the supporters' misconduct. Additionally, the panel dismissed claims about incorrect application of EFA regulations, as the core issue remained the supporters' actions and the club's liability under strict liability principles. The ruling underscores the importance of clubs ensuring proper conduct among their supporters, even in challenging circumstances. The final decision partially upheld Al Masry's appeal, setting aside one part of the EFA's decision. The club was banned from participating in EFA events with spectators for one complete season, to be enforced in the next uninterrupted season. Any partial enforcement of the sanction in interrupted seasons would be deducted from the next complete season. All other claims were dismissed. The case serves as a precedent for the enforcement of disciplinary measures in football, prioritizing spectator safety and accountability.