The case involves a complex arbitration dispute before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) between multiple appellants—including PT Liga Prima Indonesia Sportindo (LPIS), several Indonesian football clubs, and individuals—and respondents such as FIFA, the Asian Football Confederation (AFC), the Football Association of Indonesia (PSSI), and Johar Arfin Husin. The dispute centered on governance issues in Indonesian football, including sanctions, league management, and decisions made by the respondents. The CAS panel, composed of Stuart McInnes, Sophie Dion, and Massimo Coccia, addressed jurisdictional and procedural matters, emphasizing that for CAS to have appellate jurisdiction, there must be a clear, appealable decision affecting the parties' legal situation. The panel found that public announcements on FIFA’s website or memorandums of understanding (MoUs) did not constitute such decisions.
The appellants raised antitrust and competition concerns, arguing FIFA’s actions violated public policy, but the panel ruled these arguments did not grant CAS jurisdiction, suggesting such claims should be pursued in national courts or competition authorities. The panel also rejected converting the appellate procedure into ordinary arbitration, citing CAS rules. The dispute had a lengthy background, including FIFA’s 2011 intervention via a Normalization Committee, the creation of LPIS, and a 2012 MoU between PSSI, ISL, and other stakeholders, witnessed by FIFA and AFC. Despite these developments, the panel dismissed the appeal, finding no valid decision to challenge and reaffirming jurisdictional limits.
The appellants later sought urgent measures against FIFA, AFC, and PSSI regarding decisions from a 2013 Extraordinary Congress, but CAS rejected consolidation with another case due to unpaid costs. Respondents contested CAS jurisdiction, arguing no formal decisions were issued. The appellants claimed jurisdiction based on FIFA and PSSI statutes, the MoU, and antitrust violations under Indonesian law, while respondents maintained CAS lacked jurisdiction. The panel examined these arguments, noting the MoU was an agreement, not a unilateral ruling, and thus not appealable. It also highlighted that FIFA’s recognition of CAS did not extend jurisdiction over decisions by national federations or individuals.
The panel concluded CAS lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of an appealable decision by FIFA or AFC and no arbitration agreement with PSSI or Husin. Even if jurisdiction existed, the appeal was inadmissible as it was filed beyond the 21-day deadline. The panel dismissed all further requests and motions, underscoring the necessity of clear jurisdictional grounds and procedural compliance in CAS proceedings. The case illustrates the complexities of sports governance, particularly the interplay between national federations, continental bodies, and FIFA, and the challenges of reconciling national legal frameworks with international arbitration. The final ruling closed the matter definitively, leaving no room for further legal actions.