The case involves an arbitration between Gordon Derrick and FIFA, decided by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 3 February 2017. Derrick appealed FIFA's decision denying his eligibility for a top position, specifically as FIFA Vice-President, due to integrity concerns. The CAS panel, composed of José María Alonso Puig, Romano Subiotto QC, and Nicolas Ulmer, addressed several key issues, including Derrick's standing to appeal, his duty to report bribes, FIFA's discretionary power in assessing candidate integrity, and the legal nature of FIFA's eligibility decisions.
Under Swiss law, Derrick needed to demonstrate a "Rechtsschutzinteresse" or "interest worthy of protection" to have standing. The panel ruled he had standing because FIFA's decision harmed his reputation and future career prospects in football, even though the elections in question had concluded. The negative publicity had tangible effects on his professional life, distinguishing this case from mere tournament exclusions.
The panel emphasized that football officials have an autonomous duty to report bribes, regardless of the candidate's conduct. Derrick's failure to report bribes related to a FIFA presidential candidate was deemed irregular, even though there was insufficient evidence for a life ban on that candidate. The decision underscored the high integrity standards required for individuals in senior sports positions.
FIFA's Audit and Compliance Committee, under the 2016 FIFA Governance Regulations (FGR), has discretionary power to assess a candidate's integrity, not to determine violations of the FIFA Code of Ethics. The committee concluded Derrick lacked the required integrity due to his disciplinary record and an ongoing FIFA Ethics Committee investigation. The panel upheld this administrative decision, noting it was not disciplinary and thus not subject to proportionality or presumption of innocence principles. However, FIFA was required to follow proper procedures under its statutes and FGR.
Derrick, a former professional player and General Secretary of the Antigua and Barbuda Football Association, sought election as CONCACAF President, which would also make him a FIFA Vice-President. Both positions required eligibility checks. CONCACAF delegated its check to a law firm, while FIFA conducted its own. Derrick disclosed prior sanctions, including a 2011 reprimand and fine for involvement in the Mohamed Bin Hammam scandal, and an ongoing 2015 investigation. FIFA's Audit and Compliance Committee deemed him ineligible, leading to his appeal.
The CAS panel dismissed Derrick's appeal, affirming FIFA's discretionary authority and the administrative nature of its decision. The ruling clarified the obligations of football officials and reinforced FIFA's role in ensuring candidates for high office meet stringent integrity standards. The decision underscored the lasting reputational impact of eligibility denials and the importance of transparency in football governance.
Derrick argued that the 2011 sanction was minor and tied to the overturned Bin Hammam case, while the 2015 investigation lacked transparency. He claimed the decision stigmatized him, affecting his roles in football and banking. FIFA countered that Derrick failed to fully cooperate with documentation requests and emphasized the need for impeccable integrity in high-ranking officials. The panel rejected Derrick's comparisons to other cases, noting the unique obligations of FIFA officials.
Ultimately, the panel upheld FIFA's decision, highlighting the importance of maintaining public trust in sports governance. The ruling reinforced that past misconduct and unresolved ethical concerns are valid grounds for disqualification from leadership roles in FIFA. The case underscores the rigorous scrutiny applied to candidates for FIFA positions and the legal avenues available for contesting such decisions. The panel's decision confirmed FIFA's authority to enforce high integrity standards, ensuring the credibility of global football governance.