The case involves a complex legal dispute between Club Sportif Sfaxien (CSS), the Tunisian Football Federation (FTF), and Étoile Sportive du Sahel (ESS) regarding the eligibility of a player to participate in a match on December 20, 2015. The dispute was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which issued its final decision on September 21, 2016. The controversy centered on two main issues: the player's suspension status and the payment of a contractual termination fee to his former club, Espérance Sportive de Tunis.
The player had initially received a four-match suspension in May 2015 for misconduct. Later, he terminated his contract with Espérance without just cause and was ordered to pay compensation by the FTF's National Conciliation and Arbitration Committee (CNCRL) in July 2015. The player paid the initial fee and joined ESS. In September 2015, the FTF's National Appeal Commission (CNA FTF) imposed an additional four-month suspension, retroactive to August 2015. CSS argued that the player had not completed his suspensions by the December 20 match and had not paid the full termination fee, rendering his participation invalid.
The FTF and ESS defended the player's eligibility, stating that the suspensions had been served cumulatively and that the player had complied with all requirements. The FTF confirmed in December 2015 that the player could return after serving one final match suspension. CSS contested this interpretation, claiming the suspensions should have been served separately and that the FTF had committed administrative errors.
The CAS examined jurisdictional, procedural, and substantive issues. It confirmed its authority to hear the case under FTF statutes and dismissed objections to its jurisdiction as untimely. On the merits, the CAS ruled that disciplinary sanctions in sports are governed by private association regulations, not penal law, and upheld the FTF's interpretation of the suspensions. It also found no legal basis to disqualify the player for unpaid fees, as the initial compensation had been paid and no regulations explicitly mandated disqualification for such cases.
The CAS rejected CSS's claims of administrative faults and bias, emphasizing that procedural defects at the federation level were remedied by the arbitration process. It concluded that the player was lawfully eligible to play, dismissing all appeals and upholding the FTF's decision. The ruling underscored the finality of prior disciplinary decisions and clarified the application of sports regulations in eligibility disputes. The case highlights the complexities of player sanctions, contractual disputes, and the role of arbitration in resolving sports conflicts.