The case revolves around Florent Malouda, a professional French footballer, and his participation in the 2017 CONCACAF Gold Cup while representing the French Guiana Football League (LFG). The dispute arose from Malouda's eligibility to play for French Guiana, as he had previously represented the French national team in official matches, which under FIFA regulations (Article 5.2 of the FIFA Statutes) rendered him ineligible for another national team. Despite repeated warnings from CONCACAF and FIFA, the LFG included Malouda in their squad, arguing that as a non-FIFA member, they were not bound by FIFA's rules. They also cited the precedent of Jocelyn Angloma, who had played for Guadeloupe after representing France.
CONCACAF and FIFA maintained that the Gold Cup regulations explicitly incorporated FIFA's eligibility rules, binding all participating teams, including non-FIFA members. Malouda was fielded in a match against Honduras on July 11, 2017, leading to disciplinary action by CONCACAF. On July 13, 2017, CONCACAF's Disciplinary Committee imposed a two-match suspension, a stadium ban, and a $10,000 fine on Malouda, while the LFG was fined and forced to forfeit the match. Malouda contested the decision, arguing procedural flaws, including improper notification and lack of due process. He also claimed he was misled into believing he could attend a subsequent match despite the stadium ban.
On July 14, 2017, Malouda violated the stadium ban by attending a match between French Guiana and Costa Rica, escorted by CONCACAF officials. This led to a further fine of $3,500 on July 16, 2017. Malouda appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the decisions were procedurally flawed and unenforceable. The CAS examined the case, focusing on notification irregularities, the principle of good faith, and the enforceability of the sanctions. The panel concluded that Malouda had actual knowledge of the sanctions despite procedural defects, as the decision was widely publicized and his father had acknowledged it via email. The CAS upheld CONCACAF's decisions, ruling that Malouda knowingly violated the stadium ban and that the fines were proportionate.
The case highlights tensions between regional and global football governance, particularly regarding non-FIFA members. It underscores the importance of procedural fairness, proper notification, and adherence to regulations in disciplinary matters. The CAS's decision reinforced the enforceability of disciplinary rules, emphasizing that parties must proactively inquire about decisions affecting them and act in good faith. The outcome clarified the interplay between CONCACAF and FIFA regulations, setting a precedent for similar disputes in international football.