The case involves Hatem Ben Arfa, a French professional football player, who appealed a decision by FIFA regarding his eligibility to play in official matches. The dispute centered on whether a match Ben Arfa played in the U21 Professional Development League (U21 PDL) for Newcastle United should be classified as an "official match" under FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTJ). Article 5.3 of the RSTJ stipulates that a player cannot be registered for more than three clubs in a season and can only play official matches for two clubs during that period. Ben Arfa had played a U21 PDL match for Newcastle United before joining Hull City on loan and later signing with OGC Nice in France. The French Football Federation (FFF) sought FIFA's clarification on whether the U21 PDL match counted as an official match, which would affect Ben Arfa's eligibility to play for Nice. FIFA's Single Judge ruled that U21 PDL matches are official, as they fall under organized football, prompting Ben Arfa to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS examined Ben Arfa's standing to appeal, applying Swiss law, and determined he had a "sufficient interest" since the decision impacted his professional career. The key legal issue was whether the U21 PDL match qualified as an official match under the RSTJ. FIFA's Single Judge had affirmed this, citing the broad definition of organized football. Ben Arfa argued against this classification, but the CAS upheld FIFA's interpretation, dismissing his appeal. The ruling reinforced FIFA's authority in interpreting its rules and clarified the status of reserve and youth league matches, barring Ben Arfa from playing for Nice under RSTJ restrictions.
Ben Arfa further contended that FIFA's decision violated his fundamental rights, including his freedom to work and move within the EU under Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). He argued the U21 PDL match was educational, not official, and that similar cases had not resulted in playing bans. FIFA countered that Ben Arfa lacked standing, as he was not a party to the original decision, and maintained the U21 match was official under its regulations. The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction but noted the Single Judge's decision only addressed the general definition of official matches, not Ben Arfa's specific case, which fell under the French Professional Football League (LFP).
The CAS panel found Ben Arfa lacked standing to challenge the Single Judge's decision, as it did not directly affect him; any impact stemmed from the LFP's subsequent ruling. Despite sympathizing with his situation, the panel dismissed his appeal, emphasizing procedural boundaries in sports arbitration. The case highlighted the complexities of player registration rules, the intersection of sports governance and legal rights, and the need for clear regulatory definitions. The final ruling upheld FIFA's decision, dismissing all other claims and underscoring the importance of direct and concrete interest in challenging administrative rulings in sports governance.