The case involves a dispute between Jacksen Ferreira Tiago, a Brazilian football coach, and the Football Association of Penang (FAP) along with the Football Association of Malaysia (FAM). The conflict arose from the termination of Tiago's employment contract by FAP in 2016. Tiago claimed the termination was unjust and sought compensation, while FAP argued it had just cause. The dispute went through multiple stages of adjudication, including proceedings before the FAM Status Committee and the FAM Appeals Committee, before being brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The central issue was whether CAS had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the employment contract between Tiago and FAP contained a dispute resolution clause referring grievances to the FAM Status Committee and, if unresolved, to the FAM Appeal Committee, with final arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1952 in Malaysia. The contract did not explicitly provide for CAS jurisdiction.
The FAM Appeals Committee's decision referenced Article 77 of the FAM Disciplinary Code, which reserved the right to appeal to CAS, but the Sole Arbitrator found this insufficient to establish CAS jurisdiction. The Arbitrator applied the principle of "Kompetenz-Kompetenz," allowing CAS to determine its own jurisdiction, but concluded that the parties had agreed to resolve disputes through national arbitration, not CAS. The contract's clauses were analyzed for any pathological features—such as vagueness or contradictions—that might imply CAS jurisdiction, but none were found. The Arbitrator emphasized that arbitration is consensual and requires clear mutual agreement, which was absent in this case. The FAM's statutes also did not explicitly grant CAS jurisdiction over such disputes.
Tiago argued that CAS had jurisdiction based on the 2015 AFC Statutes, 2016 FAM Disciplinary Code, and 2016 FIFA Statutes, which recognize CAS as the exclusive forum for resolving disputes after exhausting internal avenues. He contended that the arbitration clause in his employment contract was ambiguous and did not clearly specify the procedure or deadline for appeals, justifying his choice of CAS due to its expertise in sports disputes. Conversely, FAP and FAM argued that CAS lacked jurisdiction, as the employment contract explicitly directed disputes to the Arbitration Council in Malaysia under the FAM Disciplinary Code. They maintained that neither the FAM statutes nor the employment contract included a specific arbitration agreement granting CAS jurisdiction.
The Sole Arbitrator ruled that CAS lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the parties had agreed to resolve disputes through national arbitration mechanisms. The decision underscored the importance of clear and unambiguous arbitration agreements in contracts and the necessity for parties to explicitly consent to CAS jurisdiction for it to apply. The case highlights the limitations of CAS's authority when contractual or statutory provisions do not expressly provide for its involvement. The Arbitrator dismissed the appeal on jurisdictional grounds, leaving the FAM Appeals Committee's decision as final. The outcome reinforces the principle that arbitration agreements must be precise and mutually agreed upon to determine the proper forum for dispute resolution.