The case involves Ariel Alberto Alvarado Carrasco, a former member of the CONCACAF Executive Committee, who appealed his suspension from all football-related activities within the CONCACAF region. The suspension was imposed following an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, which had significant repercussions for football governance. CONCACAF initially suspended Alvarado temporarily in December 2015 and later proposed a permanent suspension, ratified by the CONCACAF Congress in May 2016. Alvarado contested the decision, arguing it was arbitrary and lacked due process, as he no longer held any official positions within CONCACAF since 2013.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was tasked with determining the admissibility of the appeal and its jurisdiction over the matter. Key legal issues included the definition of "receipt" of a decision, the justification for suspension or dismissal under CONCACAF statutes, and whether due process was followed. The CAS panel, led by Sole Arbitrator Francisco González de Cossío, clarified that Article 54.6 of the CONCACAF Statutes pertains to the admissibility of evidence but does not limit CAS's authority to adjudicate the case. The panel emphasized that a motion for dismissal must be justified under Article 36.2 of the CONCACAF Statutes and that organizations have discretion to exclude members when warranted, without needing exhaustive lists of offenses.
Regarding due process, the panel ruled that Alvarado was given an opportunity to defend himself before the CONCACAF Congress but chose not to attend, which did not invalidate the proceedings. The CAS also addressed procedural matters, including the submission of new evidence and the parties' preferences for a hearing or written submissions. The panel upheld CONCACAF's decision, affirming that the suspension was justified and that due process requirements were met.
Alvarado raised several arguments, including the principle of ne bis in idem (double jeopardy), nullum crimen sine lege (no crime without law), and violations of due process. The Sole Arbitrator rejected these claims, noting that the CONCACAF decision and other legal proceedings addressed distinct issues and that criminal law principles did not apply to organizational decisions. The Arbitrator found that CONCACAF's statutes provided sufficient justification for the dismissal and that the organization acted within its authority to protect its reputation.
The CAS ruled that the appeal was timely, as it was filed within the 21-day period calculated from the date Alvarado acknowledged receipt of the decision. However, the appeal was ultimately dismissed on the merits, as the panel found no grounds to invalidate CONCACAF's decision. The case underscores the balance between organizational discretion and procedural fairness in disciplinary actions within sports governance, affirming the authority of sports bodies to take measures to safeguard their integrity.