The case involves a dispute between the Sudan Football Association (SFA) and FIFA regarding the fielding of an ineligible player, Eldin Ali Idris Farah, during a 2014 FIFA World Cup qualifying match against Zambia on June 2, 2012. The player had been sent off in a previous match during the 2012 CAF Africa Cup of Nations, resulting in an automatic suspension for the next official match. Despite this, he played in the subsequent World Cup qualifier, leading FIFA to impose sanctions on the SFA, including a fine of CHF 6,000 and forfeiture of the match. The SFA appealed the decision, arguing it had not received proper notification of the suspension from the Confederation of African Football (CAF) and that FIFA misled them by assuring no suspensions were in place.
The legal issues centered on the formal requirements for confirming player suspensions, the automatic nature of suspensions following expulsions, and the responsibility of national associations to verify player eligibility. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel upheld FIFA's decision, ruling that under CAF and FIFA regulations, suspensions take immediate effect without needing formal confirmation. The panel emphasized that national associations bear the sole responsibility to ensure only eligible players are fielded, including verifying suspensions with the relevant authorities. The SFA's failure to do so, whether due to internal miscommunication or lack of diligence, did not absolve it of liability.
The SFA argued that CAF failed to notify the correct officials, sending the suspension notice to a defunct delegation head instead of the General Secretary. However, the CAS panel found that the fax transmission to the SFA's official number was legally sufficient, regardless of the recipient's title. The panel also dismissed the SFA's claim that CAF should have communicated via email, as the disciplinary code did not require it. Additionally, the SFA contended that a FIFA match commissioner had assured them no suspensions were in place, but the panel clarified that match commissioners are not authorized to provide such assurances and cannot shift responsibility away from the association.
FIFA maintained that disciplinary infringements could be prosecuted ex officio under Article 108(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code, meaning no formal protest from the opposing team (Zambia) was necessary. The panel agreed, reinforcing FIFA's authority to act independently in disciplinary matters. The SFA also referenced a prior FIFA decision (Decision 050537 SUD LIM) to argue for leniency, but the panel found the circumstances distinct, as the earlier case involved an incorrect confirmation letter from FIFA, which was not the case here.
The CAS panel concluded that the SFA acted negligently by failing to verify the player's eligibility, especially after being previously warned by FIFA to exercise greater diligence. The sanctions imposed were deemed proportionate, as the rule against fielding ineligible players is fundamental to maintaining competition integrity. The panel dismissed the SFA's appeal, confirming FIFA's sanctions in full. The ruling underscores the strict liability of teams in ensuring player eligibility and the importance of adhering to disciplinary regulations in international football.