The case revolves around a dispute between two Iranian football clubs, Gostareshe Foulad Tabriz Cultural-Sports Institution (the Appellant) and Basghah Farhangi Varzeshi Nassaji Mazandaran (the Respondent), concerning the eligibility of a player, David Wilkrom, fielded during a match on 13 February 2011. The Appellant alleged that Wilkrom was ineligible because his employment contract was signed and registered after the transfer window had closed, which they argued cost them promotion to the professional league. The Appellant initially lodged a complaint with the Disciplinary Committee of the Iranian Football Federation (FFIRI), which rejected the claim. An appeal to the FFIRI Appeals Committee was also dismissed due to insufficient evidence.
The Appellant then filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 15 July 2012, seeking to overturn the match result and secure promotion. The Respondent failed to submit a timely response but later admitted in a letter dated 25 February 2013 that Wilkrom’s contract was indeed registered after the deadline, attributing the violation to a former employee’s misconduct. The case proceeded with a sole arbitrator, Dr. Borhan Amrallah, who examined jurisdictional issues under Swiss law, as the CAS is based in Lausanne. The arbitrator assessed whether the CAS had jurisdiction based on the FFIRI Statutes and FIFA regulations.
The key jurisdictional question hinged on Article 67 of the FIFA Statutes, which allows appeals to the CAS against decisions by FIFA’s legal bodies, confederations, members, or leagues. However, the arbitrator noted that CAS jurisprudence consistently holds that FIFA’s rules alone do not grant jurisdiction unless the member association’s regulations explicitly incorporate such a clause. The Appellant relied on Article 65(1) of the FFIRI Statutes, but this provision only applied to appeals against FIFA decisions, not FFIRI decisions. Since no FIFA decision was under appeal, the clause did not confer jurisdiction to the CAS. The arbitrator emphasized that the burden of proving a valid arbitration clause rested with the Appellant, who failed to provide evidence of such a clause in the FFIRI regulations or a bilateral agreement.
Ultimately, the CAS ruled it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, dismissing the appeal on procedural grounds. The decision underscores the importance of clear jurisdictional provisions in sports arbitration, particularly when involving national federations. Without explicit incorporation of CAS jurisdiction in domestic regulations, the CAS cannot intervene, even if substantive issues are at stake. The case highlights the necessity for parties to establish a valid legal basis for arbitration and reaffirms the principle that CAS authority depends on the specific legal framework of the relevant football governing bodies. The ruling serves as a reminder of the procedural rigor required in sports disputes and the limitations of international arbitration in the absence of clear jurisdictional agreements.