The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on April 19, 2018, in the case of Florent Malouda versus the Confederation of North, Central American, and Caribbean Association Football (CONCACAF), concerning Malouda's eligibility to play for the French Guiana Football League (LFG) in the 2017 Gold Cup. Malouda, who had previously represented France in official international matches, was deemed ineligible under FIFA's Article 5.2, which prohibits players from switching associations after participating in an official match for one association. The dispute arose when Malouda was included in LFG's squad despite repeated warnings from CONCACAF about his ineligibility. The LFG, an associate member of CONCACAF but not a FIFA member, argued that it was not bound by FIFA's rules and cited precedents like Jocelyn Angloma, who had played for Guadeloupe after representing France. However, CONCACAF and FIFA maintained that the Gold Cup's regulations explicitly referenced FIFA's eligibility criteria, making them applicable to all participants, including non-FIFA members like the LFG.
The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Petros Mavroidis, Bernard Foucher, and Michele Bernasconi, addressed several legal issues. It affirmed CONCACAF's authority to investigate Malouda's ineligibility ex officio, even without a formal protest, and rejected Malouda's claim of unequal treatment, stating that isolated cases of non-enforcement do not justify exceptions. The panel also clarified that the LFG, despite its affiliation with the French Football Federation (FFF), was treated as an autonomous entity under CONCACAF's rules during the Gold Cup, meaning Malouda's prior appearances for France rendered him ineligible. The panel dismissed Malouda's argument that he acted in good faith, noting that parties represented by legal counsel are expected to verify regulatory compliance.
Procedurally, the CAS upheld CONCACAF's disciplinary decisions, including a two-match suspension and a stadium ban for Malouda, as well as a fine and match forfeiture for the LFG. Malouda's appeal was deemed inadmissible due to his failure to pay the required appeal fee of USD 3,000, a procedural requirement under FIFA's Disciplinary Code. The CAS emphasized that Malouda, represented by legal counsel, had ample opportunity to comply with the rules and could not claim ignorance. The panel also found that notification irregularities, such as the lack of formal signatures or legal recourse information in the disciplinary decision, did not invalidate the sanctions, as Malouda was aware of the decision and participated in subsequent proceedings.
The case underscores the strict application of player eligibility rules in international football and the limited scope for exceptions based on good faith or claims of unequal enforcement. It also reaffirms the authority of governing bodies like CONCACAF to act independently to uphold competition integrity. The CAS's dismissal of Malouda's appeal reinforced the importance of regulatory compliance and procedural adherence in sports disputes, closing the case without further action.