The case involves Thanda Royal Zulu FC (Pty) Limited, a South African football club, appealing against decisions made by the South African Football Association (SAFA) and related entities following a boycott during the 2012/2013 National First Division (NFD) season. The boycott, involving multiple clubs, disrupted the season, leading to unresolved fixtures and unequal match counts. Thanda Royal Zulu, which finished fourth and missed promotion opportunities, faced disciplinary actions, including fines and match forfeitures. The dispute centered on jurisdictional and procedural issues, particularly the applicability of FIFA regulations at the national level and the precedence of specific provisions in SAFA's statutes over general ones. The case was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to resolve these disputes.
The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators from Italy, the UK, and the Czech Republic, ruled that specific provisions in SAFA's statutes (lex specialis) take precedence over general ones, affirming CAS's jurisdiction over the appeal. The panel clarified that while national federations must respect FIFA regulations, these rules are not directly applicable unless implemented by the national federation. FIFA allows national federations autonomy in domestic matters, provided they adhere to fundamental principles. The panel emphasized that FIFA's regulations must be incorporated into national rules to be enforceable domestically, reinforcing the balance between international oversight and national autonomy in football governance.
Thanda Royal Zulu argued that the disciplinary proceedings were not finalized within the stipulated timeframe under SAFA rules and that an agreement existed to reschedule the boycotted matches. However, the panel found no convincing evidence of such an agreement and noted that the appellant's guilty plea undermined this claim. The panel also dismissed the argument that the NSL Disciplinary Committee lacked authority to declare matches abandoned, ruling that the committee's decision to withhold points and goals was fair and in accordance with NSL rules. The panel rejected the appellant's reliance on the FIFA Disciplinary Code, stating that FIFA regulations do not automatically apply to national federations unless explicitly incorporated.
The panel upheld the NSL Disciplinary Committee's decision, concluding that the boycott was self-inflicted and the sanctions were consistent and fair. The panel confirmed that the appealed decision was final within SAFA's dispute resolution system and that the appeal to CAS was admissible under SAFA's constitution. Ultimately, the CAS ruled that it had jurisdiction over the appeal but dismissed it, affirming the original decision. The case underscores the importance of clear regulations and procedural fairness in sports governance, as well as the role of CAS in resolving disputes within the hierarchical framework of international and national football bodies. The decision highlights the need for proper implementation of international regulations at the national level to maintain consistency and fairness in football governance.