The case of Emanuel Briffa v. Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) involved allegations of match-fixing in two matches played by the Maltese U-21 football team in March 2016. The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Martin Schimke, Mr. Jacopo Tognon, and Mr. Bernhard Welten, issued its award on 18 December 2019. The dispute centered on whether Briffa, a professional footballer, had accepted an offer to fix matches against Montenegro and the Czech Republic. The panel addressed key legal principles, including the applicability of rules at the time of the alleged offense, the standard of proof, and the interpretation of acceptance in match-fixing cases. The panel affirmed that the substantive rules in force at the time of the alleged offense govern the case, while procedural rules apply as of the appeal's filing. The standard of proof required was "comfortable satisfaction," which lies between a balance of probabilities and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This standard demands high confidence in the evidence for serious allegations. The panel clarified that accepting a match-fixing offer requires a definitive agreement, not merely a failure to reject the offer. A player's overall conduct, rather than the number of unreported approaches, determines the severity of a violation. Actions aiding a match-fixing plot weigh more heavily than passive behavior.
The factual background revealed that an organized group, including individuals like Ronnie Mackay and Seyble Zammit, orchestrated the plot. Briffa admitted to being approached by Zammit with an offer involving USD 3,000 but denied accepting it. Investigations by UEFA and Maltese authorities, supported by betting anomalies and player testimonies, led to criminal convictions for Mackay and Zammit. Briffa and teammate Kyle Cesare were initially acquitted but later found guilty in Maltese courts, though exempted from punishment under conditions. UEFA's Ethics and Disciplinary Inspector investigated the matter, leading to disciplinary proceedings. The CAS panel's decision underscored the importance of clear evidence in proving match-fixing and highlighted the nuanced assessment required to determine a player's involvement. The ruling emphasized that mere non-rejection of an offer does not equate to acceptance and that a player's active participation in a plot is more significant than passive conduct. The case serves as a precedent for handling match-fixing allegations, balancing rigorous proof standards with a comprehensive evaluation of a player's actions.
Briffa appealed a UEFA Appeals Body decision imposing a ten-year ban on all football-related activities due to alleged violations of UEFA’s Disciplinary Regulations, specifically Article 12(2)(a), (d), and (e). He sought to overturn or reduce the sanction, arguing that the evidence did not support the charges and that the penalty was disproportionate. Briffa contended that the standard of proof should be rigorous, close to the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt," and that UEFA failed to meet this threshold. He emphasized that he had not accepted any bribe or manipulated a match, pointing to his immediate departure from a meeting where the bribe was discussed and his refusal to engage further. He also highlighted inconsistencies in witness testimonies, particularly regarding the credibility of key witnesses like Mr. Zammit and Mr. Mackay. UEFA maintained that the evidence clearly demonstrated Briffa’s acceptance of the bribe offer, as corroborated by multiple testimonies. The organization rejected the notion that meeting Mr. Mackay was a prerequisite for accepting the bribe, noting that testimonies confirmed Briffa was directly offered money by Mr. Zammit.
The Panel concluded that while there was no conclusive evidence to prove Briffa accepted the bribe, his actions raised serious concerns. He met with individuals involved in the match-fixing plot on multiple occasions but failed to report these interactions to UEFA or other authorities, as required by Article 12(2)(d) and (e) of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations. The Panel found that Briffa’s behavior, including his repeated meetings with the match-fixing mastermind and his failure to reject the offer outright, kept the plot alive and violated Article 12(1) UEFA DR, which pertains to behavior damaging the integrity of matches. The original sanction imposed by UEFA was a 10-year ban, which the Panel considered excessive given the lack of conclusive evidence for the most serious charge. However,