The case involves Kevin Sammut, a Maltese football player, who was accused of involvement in match-fixing during a 2007 UEFA European Championship qualifying match between Norway and Malta. The allegations emerged during German criminal proceedings in 2010, where individuals Marijo Cvrtak and Ante Sapina admitted to fixing the match. Cvrtak testified that he met with Sammut to confirm the fix, agreeing on a 4-0 loss for Malta, though no money was exchanged. Cvrtak also claimed to have encountered Sammut and other players in a hotel elevator, where Sammut introduced him as "our man," suggesting broader involvement. The match result aligned with the alleged fix, with Sammut making a strategic error before being substituted at halftime.
Investigations by German and Maltese authorities, as well as UEFA, followed. Sammut denied any involvement, and no criminal charges were filed in Malta. However, UEFA initiated disciplinary proceedings, leading to a hearing where Sammut was accused of violating UEFA's disciplinary regulations. The UEFA Control and Disciplinary Body (CDB) initially imposed a ten-year ban, but the UEFA Appeals Body later increased it to a lifetime ban, extending it worldwide via FIFA. Sammut appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing procedural unfairness, insufficient evidence, and disproportionate punishment.
The CAS panel reviewed the case, applying the "comfortable satisfaction" standard of proof, given the seriousness of the allegations. While the panel found credible evidence that the match was fixed and that Sammut had some involvement, it concluded that his exact role was not fully proven. The panel noted discrepancies in testimonies, particularly regarding whether Sammut met Cvrtak in a hotel room, but ultimately found Cvrtak's account more credible. However, the panel deemed the lifetime ban disproportionate, reducing it to a ten-year ban, effective from August 17, 2012, and enforceable worldwide.
The case highlights the challenges of proving match-fixing, where evidence often relies on witness testimonies and circumstantial details. It also underscores the importance of proportionate disciplinary measures, balancing the need to uphold integrity in sports with fairness to the accused. The CAS decision reflects a careful assessment of the evidence, acknowledging Sammut's involvement while adjusting the sanction to fit the proven extent of his actions. The ruling reaffirms the commitment to combating corruption in football while ensuring disciplinary actions are just and measured.