The case involves Harold Mayne-Nicholls, a former FIFA official, who appealed sanctions imposed by FIFA for alleged violations of the FIFA Code of Ethics (FCE). The dispute centered on Mayne-Nicholls' conduct as Chairman of the Bid Evaluation Group for the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup bids, particularly his interactions with Andreas Bleicher of Aspire Academy, an institution linked to Qatar's bid. FIFA accused Mayne-Nicholls of requesting personal benefits, including training opportunities for his relatives, which they argued created a conflict of interest and violated ethical standards. The FIFA Ethics Committee initially imposed a seven-year ban, later reduced to three years by the FIFA Appeal Committee, citing violations of Articles 13, 15, 19, and 20 of the FCE 2012.
Mayne-Nicholls appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the sanctions were based on the retroactive application of the FCE 2012 to conduct occurring in 2010, which he claimed was not prohibited under the earlier FCE 2009. He also contested the reliability of evidence and the severity of the sanctions. The CAS Panel, applying the principle of lex mitior (favoring the more lenient law), found that requesting a benefit without actual receipt did not constitute a violation under the FCE 2009 or 2012, as neither version explicitly prohibited mere requests. Consequently, the Panel overturned the violation of Article 20. However, it upheld violations of Articles 13, 15, and 19, concluding that Mayne-Nicholls' actions created a conflict of interest, breached his fiduciary duty to FIFA, and undermined the integrity of the bidding process.
The Panel acknowledged mitigating factors, such as Mayne-Nicholls' unblemished record and cooperation, but noted aggravating factors, including his senior role and the timing of his requests. While the FIFA Appeal Committee had imposed a three-year ban, the CAS reduced it to two years, deeming this more proportionate given the nature of the violations. The Panel also upheld a CHF 20,000 fine for procedural costs. The decision highlights the importance of precise legal definitions in disciplinary cases and reinforces the principle that ethical breaches by high-ranking officials warrant significant sanctions to maintain the integrity of sports governance. The ruling underscores the balance between enforcing ethical standards and ensuring fairness in disciplinary proceedings.