The case involves Mohamed Ali Maalej, a Tunisian football coach, and the Saudi Arabian Football Federation (SAFF). Maalej was accused of match-fixing related to a game between clubs Al Mujazzal and Al Jeel in April 2016. Following an investigation by the Saudi Ministry of Sports, Maalej signed a confession under duress, which he later claimed was obtained through threats of legal action and travel restrictions. The SAFF Disciplinary Commission found him guilty, imposing a lifetime ban from football and a fine of 300,000 riyals. Maalej appealed this decision internally, but the SAFF Appeals Committee upheld the ruling in August 2016.
Maalej then appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing procedural violations, including lack of proper notification, access to case materials, and the opportunity to defend himself. He also contested the reliability of the evidence, particularly his coerced confession and the retracted testimony of Noureddine Youssef Cherif, who initially implicated Maalej but later withdrew his statements, both in writing and during a CAS hearing. The legal dispute centered on whether CAS had jurisdiction, as SAFF argued that no explicit arbitration agreement existed and that its internal decisions were final.
CAS ruled that Maalej, by participating in SAFF-governed competitions and submitting to its dispute resolution mechanisms, had implicitly consented to arbitration under SAFF's statutes. The arbitrator applied Swiss law, emphasizing that arbitration agreements can be established through reference to federation rules without explicit written consent. The arbitrator also rejected SAFF's jurisdictional objections, noting that the absence of a national arbitration center at the time of the appeal justified CAS's involvement.
On the merits, the arbitrator found Maalej's and Cherif's testimonies credible, with no evidence of collusion. Given that the disciplinary decisions relied heavily on the retracted confession and testimony, the arbitrator concluded there was insufficient proof of match-fixing. Consequently, the August 2016 SAFF Appeals Committee decision was annulled.
The case underscores key principles in sports arbitration, including the validity of arbitration agreements by reference, the importance of procedural fairness, and the unreliability of coerced evidence. It also highlights the binding nature of federation regulations and the limited scope for challenging sanctions when parties fail to actively contest allegations. The decision reinforces the role of CAS in ensuring compliance with sports governance structures and upholding due process in disciplinary proceedings.