The case revolves around Philip Chiyangwa, a Zimbabwean businessman and president of the Zimbabwe Football Association (ZIFA), who appealed a decision by FIFA’s Ethics Review Committee (ERC) declaring him ineligible for a position on the FIFA Membership Associations Committee (MAC). The dispute stemmed from Chiyangwa’s failure to respond to a request for additional information by the FIFA ERC, which led to the termination of his application process. Chiyangwa had initially expressed interest in joining FIFA’s Standing Committees in 2016 and submitted an eligibility questionnaire after reminders. Following an external background check, the FIFA ERC sought further clarification on undisclosed legal matters in November 2016, to which Chiyangwa responded. However, in December 2016, the FIFA ERC sent another request for additional information, which Chiyangwa claims he did not receive, leading to his failure to respond by the deadline. Consequently, the FIFA ERC declared him ineligible in December 2016, a decision communicated to him in March 2017 without detailed reasoning.
Chiyangwa sought clarification and was informed that his ineligibility was due to his failure to respond to the December 2016 request. He then appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), requesting the decision be overturned and his eligibility restored. FIFA opposed a sole arbitrator and requested a three-member panel. The CAS panel ruled that while FIFA’s correspondence did not explicitly state that failure to respond would terminate the application, it is implicit in such processes that unresponsiveness can lead to such an outcome. The panel upheld FIFA’s decision, emphasizing that Chiyangwa’s failure to engage with the process justified the termination of his application.
Chiyangwa argued that he never received the critical communication from FIFA and thus could not respond. He also claimed that the letter did not specify consequences for non-compliance and disputed the allegations, stating they were unproven or resolved. He highlighted his busy schedule during the period, including his role as COSAFA president and involvement in CAF elections. FIFA countered that the letter was properly sent and that Chiyangwa’s failure to respond violated his obligation to collaborate in the eligibility check. FIFA stressed the high integrity standards required for officials, especially given its recent reputational challenges, and argued that the information in the Mintz Report and Chiyangwa’s lack of response justified the ERC’s decision.
The CAS panel examined procedural fairness, the validity of the allegations, and the standards for eligibility. It concluded that Chiyangwa likely received the letter, as he referenced its contents in his appeal, and that a warning about consequences was unnecessary in an application process. The panel found no procedural irregularities and upheld the FIFA ERC’s decision, noting that Chiyangwa could reapply in the future with complete and timely submissions. The case underscores the importance of timely communication and cooperation in administrative processes within sports governance, as well as the stringent ethical expectations placed on individuals in prominent roles. The CAS ultimately dismissed Chiyangwa’s appeal, upheld FIFA’s decision, and rejected all other claims for relief.