The case involves an arbitration before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) between Virach Chanpanich and the Football Association of Thailand (FAT) concerning the 2013 election for the FAT presidency. Chanpanich contested the election results, alleging irregularities and breaches in the electoral process, while FAT maintained the election was conducted fairly. The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Luigi Fumagalli, Mr. Mark Hovell, and Mr. Efraim Barak, addressed several key legal principles in its award. The panel emphasized that its authority is defined by the scope of the arbitration agreement and the submissions made by the parties, and it cannot rule beyond what was claimed or address issues outside the agreed arbitration framework. The burden of proof lies with the party alleging wrongdoing, meaning Chanpanich had to substantiate his claims of electoral irregularities under Swiss law principles.
The dispute arose from the 2013 FAT presidential election, where Chanpanich ran against the incumbent, Worawi Makudi, who won the vote. Chanpanich argued that the election was flawed due to procedural violations, while FAT defended its legitimacy. The election followed a process to revise FAT’s statutes in line with FIFA standards, which included consultations and an extraordinary congress in August 2013. During this period, tensions emerged, including disputes over membership composition and allegations of members being barred from entering the congress venue. FIFA and the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) were involved in overseeing the process, mediating between FAT and opposition groups to ensure compliance with FIFA’s requirements.
Chanpanich raised several allegations, including improper interference by senior FAT staff, unlawful amendments to the Appeal Committee’s membership, lack of procedural fairness in the appeal process, and voting by ineligible delegates. The CAS panel examined each claim in detail. Regarding interference by senior staff, the panel found no evidence that their actions materially impacted the electoral process. The panel also dismissed claims about the Appeal Committee’s composition, noting that changes were made within the agreed framework and without evidence of impropriety. On procedural fairness, the panel concluded that the appeal process was not flawed, as no rules mandated public hearings or specific procedural requirements.
The panel also addressed the eligibility of delegates, reviewing cases where Chanpanich alleged ineligible individuals had cast votes. It found no substantial evidence to overturn the decisions of the Electoral and Appeal Committees, emphasizing that Chanpanich had not raised timely objections during the process. The panel further rejected claims about the resignation of Executive Committee members, finding their resignations valid under FAT statutes and noting no requirement for formal registration under Thai law.
Ultimately, the panel dismissed Chanpanich’s appeal in its entirety, upholding the election results. It concluded that the alleged irregularities, even if proven, would not have changed the outcome and that the electoral process complied with FAT’s statutes and Electoral Code. The case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules in sports governance and the high evidentiary threshold for challenging election outcomes before CAS. The panel’s decision highlights the balance between respecting the arbitration agreement’s scope and addressing substantive issues, reinforcing the principle that parties must accept the consequences of agreed deviations from standard procedures.