The case revolves around a dispute between three Tunisian football clubs—Club Avenir Sportive d’Oued Ellil, Association Avenir Sportive de l’Union Sportive de Matouia, and Club de l’Etoile Sportive d’Al Weslatya—and the Tunisian Football Federation (FTF). The conflict emerged during the 2016/2017 season of the third division (Ligue III) when clubs faced financial difficulties due to delayed government subsidies. The National Amateur Football League (LNFA) initially postponed the championship but later reversed its decision, resuming matches on December 29–30, 2016. Many clubs refused to play, resulting in only 7 out of 24 scheduled matches taking place. The LNFA sanctioned absent clubs with forfeits and point deductions, but the FTF’s National Appeal Committee (CNA) partially overturned these sanctions, ordering some matches to be replayed. On April 7, 2017, the FTF’s federal bureau invoked Article 35 of its statutes, which grants it the authority to revise decisions in the interest of the sport, and ordered all unplayed matches to be replayed, including those where one team was absent.
The clubs appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the FTF’s intervention violated procedural fairness and their right to defend themselves. The CAS procedure involved written submissions and a videoconference hearing. The FTF initially requested a three-arbitrator panel but refused to pay its share of the advance costs, leading the CAS to appoint a sole arbitrator, Prof. Gérald Simon. The hearing took place on September 8, 2017, with both parties affirming their right to be heard. The CAS issued its final award on March 6, 2018, upholding the FTF’s decision to replay the matches. The ruling emphasized the federation’s authority to act in the general interest of football, ensuring fairness and maintaining the championship’s credibility.
The appellants contended that the LNFA’s sanctions were legally justified under the FTF’s regulations and that the federal bureau’s decision violated their rights, lacked proper notification, and was not legally grounded. They sought to have the CAS uphold the LNFA’s original decisions and overturn the federal bureau’s ruling. The FTF argued that the appeal should be dismissed, claiming the appellants filed a collective appeal improperly and that the federal bureau’s decision did not harm the clubs. The FTF defended its decision as necessary to ensure fairness among clubs, given the exceptional circumstances that led to the forfeits.
The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction over the case, as the FTF’s statutes provided for appeals to the CAS against final and binding decisions. The appeal was deemed admissible, having met procedural requirements, including the 21-day filing deadline. The CAS found that only Union Sportive Matouia had sufficient legal standing to challenge the decision, as the other two clubs were not directly affected. The CAS rejected claims of procedural irregularities, lack of motivation, or violations of defense rights in the FTF’s decision. It emphasized that the federal bureau acted within its statutory authority to intervene in the interest of fairness and the championship’s credibility. The CAS concluded that the bureau’s decision was justified and dismissed the appeal, upholding the replay order to ensure equal opportunities for all clubs and maintain the integrity of the competition. The ruling underscores the discretionary power of sports federations to address issues affecting the broader interests of the sport, provided such actions align with their governing statutes. The appeal was dismissed, and all further claims were rejected.