The case involves David Martin Nakhid, a former professional football player from Trinidad & Tobago, who challenged FIFA's decision to reject his candidacy for the FIFA presidential election in 2016. The dispute centered on FIFA's Electoral Regulations, specifically Article 13, which governs the requirements for presidential candidates. Nakhid submitted letters of support from five member associations, but one of these, the U.S.V.I. Soccer Association Inc., also supported another candidate, Jérôme Champagne. According to Article 13, para. 1(c), if a member association supports multiple candidates, all such letters are void. Consequently, FIFA's Ad-hoc Electoral Committee (AHEC) invalidated both letters, leaving Nakhid with only four valid declarations, one short of the required five.
Nakhid argued that the AHEC misinterpreted the regulations, particularly Article 13, para. 2, which he claimed did not explicitly require member associations to notify FIFA directly of their support. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel ruled that this provision pertained only to the formal notification of candidacy, not support letters. The panel also clarified that the Electoral Regulations, as lex specialis, took precedence over general FIFA Statutes in presidential elections. The panel upheld the AHEC's decision to invalidate duplicate letters, emphasizing the mandatory language of Article 13, para. 1(c), and rejected Nakhid's claim that the AHEC was obligated to inform candidates about duplicate support letters, finding no such requirement in the regulations.
Nakhid further alleged procedural unfairness and ethical breaches, citing a press statement by AHEC spokesman Andreas Bantel, which he claimed demonstrated bias. He also argued that the AHEC failed to investigate duplicate letters properly and misapplied the regulations. Nakhid sought compensation of USD 2,000,000 for damages and the annulment of the AHEC's decision. FIFA defended the AHEC's actions, stating the regulations were clear and applied uniformly to all candidates. The CAS panel found no evidence of unethical behavior by the AHEC and dismissed Nakhid's claims, emphasizing that candidates bear the responsibility for ensuring compliance with electoral requirements.
The panel also addressed Nakhid's confidentiality claims, finding insufficient evidence to link all press statements to the AHEC spokesman. Even if proven, such violations would not invalidate the AHEC's decision, as they occurred after the decision was made. The panel dismissed Nakhid's appeal in its entirety, upholding the AHEC's decision and rejecting his compensation request. The ruling reinforced the importance of adhering to clear electoral rules to ensure fairness and transparency in FIFA's presidential elections. The case highlighted the procedural rigor of CAS in addressing disputes related to FIFA's electoral processes while maintaining legal certainty and integrity.