The case revolves around a dispute between Al Hilal Saudi Club, the Asian Football Confederation (AFC), and Al Ahli Club concerning the eligibility of a player, O., to participate in the 2015 AFC Champions League. The central issue was whether the player was properly registered under AFC and FIFA regulations. The dispute arose after Al Hilal protested that Al Ahli fielded an ineligible player during a match on October 20, 2015. The AFC disciplinary and appeal committees dismissed the protest, prompting Al Hilal to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS proceedings were overseen by a sole arbitrator, Marco Balmelli, who upheld the AFC's decision, ruling that the player was eligible.
Key legal principles established in the case included the requirement for players to be duly registered with the AFC, the participating club’s member association, and in compliance with FIFA’s Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). The burden of proof in disciplinary procedures involving sanctions like forfeiture lies with the AFC, while the burden shifts to the party alleging ineligibility when rights are derived from such claims. The case also highlighted the necessity for FIFA RSTP rules, particularly Articles 5 and 6, to be incorporated into member associations’ regulations, permitting player registrations only during transfer periods, with limited exceptions for unemployed players under specific conditions.
The factual background revealed that Al Ahli signed the player during a transfer period in January 2015 and registered him with the UAE Football Association (UAEFA) and AFC. Later, in August 2015, Al Ahli sought to register the player for international competitions as a replacement for an injured player. Al Hilal contested this, arguing improper registration, but the AFC dismissed the protest. The CAS proceedings were expedited, with the UAEFA denied intervention but allowed to submit an amicus curiae brief. After reviewing submissions and holding a telephonic hearing, the arbitrator concluded that the player was properly registered and eligible.
Al Hilal argued that the player was deregistered by the UAEFA on September 3, 2015, making him ineligible for the October 20 match, and sought a forfeit, advancement to the final, and legal cost reimbursement. The UAEFA and Al Ahli countered that the player was legally reclassified, allowing international participation while being ineligible domestically, a practice permitted under UAEFA rules. The AFC supported this stance, emphasizing logistical challenges if the final arrangements were altered, as the other finalist, Guangzhou Evergrande, had already made travel plans.
The case hinged on interpreting Article 26 of the AFC Champions League regulations and Article 36 of the UAE RSTP. Al Hilal contended that the UAE’s amendment to FIFA’s RSTP was invalid, while the respondents maintained compliance with all rules. The arbitrator found no evidence of ineligibility, noting the player’s registration occurred within transfer periods, making the UAE rule’s compliance with FIFA RSTP irrelevant. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the AFC’s decision and underscoring the importance of registration rules and burden of proof in eligibility disputes. The case highlights the role of CAS in resolving such conflicts and ensuring consistency in football governance standards.