The case involves a legal dispute between the Hungarian Football Federation (HFF) and FIFA, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The conflict stemmed from racist and anti-Semitic behavior by Hungarian spectators during a 2012 friendly match against Israel, where offensive chants and symbols were displayed. FIFA's Disciplinary Committee found the HFF in violation of Article 67 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC), which imposes strict liability on associations for improper conduct by their supporters, regardless of fault. The HFF was sanctioned with a fine of CHF 40,000 and ordered to play its next World Cup qualifying match behind closed doors. The HFF appealed, arguing against the strict liability principle and the severity of the sanctions, but FIFA's Appeal Committee upheld the ruling.
The CAS panel, composed of three arbitrators, examined the case and confirmed the legality of FIFA's strict liability approach under Swiss law, emphasizing its preventive and deterrent purpose. The panel noted that FIFA has limited means to directly punish individual perpetrators of racist acts, making sanctions against the responsible association necessary. The decision highlighted the seriousness of racist behavior, justifying the match closure as a proportionate measure to combat such offenses. The panel also outlined a structured approach to sanctions, suggesting fines as initial penalties, escalating to spectator bans for repeated or severe violations, with fines resetting at lower levels when harsher measures are applied.
The HFF raised procedural objections, including requests for a non-expedited process and a three-member panel, but the CAS proceeded under an expedited timetable due to the urgency of the matter. The HFF also argued that the sanctions were disproportionate, citing its clean record and the spontaneous nature of the racist outbursts. It contended that security was under police control and that removing perpetrators mid-match could have incited violence. FIFA countered that the HFF had incorporated FIFA's Safety Regulations into its own rules, obliging it to collaborate with authorities in preventing misconduct. The Respondent emphasized that the sanctions were justified under FIFA's framework, serving both punitive and preventative purposes.
The CAS panel ultimately upheld FIFA's decision, reinforcing the principle that football associations must take responsibility for fan conduct to ensure the sport's integrity and combat racism effectively. However, the panel found the fine arbitrary and reduced it to CHF 20,000, while maintaining the spectator ban. The ruling underscored the balance between punitive measures and the broader goal of eradicating discriminatory behavior in football, affirming the autonomy of sports governing bodies in setting disciplinary rules. The case highlights the complexities of addressing racist behavior in football and the legal processes involved in challenging disciplinary sanctions, emphasizing the collective responsibility of associations in fostering a safer and more inclusive sporting environment.