The case involves an appeal by Worawi Makudi, former President of the Football Association of Thailand (FAT), against disciplinary sanctions imposed by FIFA for alleged forgery, falsification, and failure to collaborate. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued its award on February 11, 2019, addressing the dispute stemming from amendments made to the FAT statutes in 2013. These amendments were initially required by FIFA to align with its standards before elections could proceed. However, further changes were made after feedback from Thai authorities, particularly the Department of Provincial Administration (DOPA), which identified conflicts with Thai law regarding quorum requirements and member rights. The revised statutes were registered, but Pattaya FC later challenged the elections and filed a criminal complaint against Makudi for alleged forgery and falsification.
The CAS panel ruled on two key legal issues. First, it clarified that forgery or falsification under the FIFA Code of Ethics (FCE) requires "indirect intent" or "dolus eventualis," meaning the act cannot be committed negligently. Second, it found that Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which includes the privilege against self-incrimination, does not apply to sanctions for delayed document submission in disciplinary cases. The panel emphasized that FIFA's disciplinary proceedings are civil in nature and do not require the same protections as criminal cases.
The factual background revealed that the FAT made multiple amendments to its statutes to comply with both FIFA and Thai legal requirements. The DOPA identified inconsistencies, leading to further revisions. The revised statutes were eventually registered, and elections were held, though they were later challenged in court. The CAS panel found no evidence that Makudi acted with intent to forge or falsify documents, as the changes were made collectively by the FAT Executive Committee (ExCo) to comply with legal recommendations. Witness testimonies supported the view that the amendments were necessary and authorized, with no evidence of unilateral action by Makudi.
However, the panel did find Makudi guilty of violating Article 41 of the FCE for failing to promptly provide a court decision to FIFA's Investigatory Chamber. While the delay was acknowledged, the panel deemed the original six-month ban disproportionate, reducing it to a reprimand. The CHF 10,000 fine was also halved to CHF 5,000, as it was unjustly applied to both alleged violations when only one was proven.
The CAS decision partially upheld Makudi's appeal, setting aside the ban for forgery but upholding the reprimand for delayed collaboration. The ruling underscored the importance of intent in forgery cases and the distinction between civil disciplinary proceedings and criminal law. It also highlighted the need for proportionality in sanctions, considering the context and cooperation of the accused. The final decision modified FIFA's original sanctions to reflect the panel's findings, requiring Makudi to pay the reduced fine within 30 days and dismissing all other motions. The case illustrates the complexities of sports governance and the balance between regulatory compliance and fundamental legal principles.