The case involves an appeal by professional football player Baghdad Bounedjah and Al Sadd FC against the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) regarding disciplinary proceedings initiated after an incident during an AFC Champions League match on 7 May 2018. Bounedjah was accused of making a hand gesture toward an assistant referee, which the AFC interpreted as implying the referee had accepted a bribe from the opposing team, Al Ahli Saudi FC. The gesture involved rubbing his thumb against his fingertips while pointing at the assistant referee after an offside call. Al Ahli Saudi FC lodged a protest under Article 59 of the AFC Disciplinary and Ethics Code, leading to disciplinary proceedings against Bounedjah. The AFC Disciplinary and Ethics Committee deemed the protest admissible, a decision later upheld by the AFC Appeal Committee.
Bounedjah and Al Sadd FC challenged the ruling, arguing the gesture was misinterpreted and merely questioned the offside decision. They contended that since the referee did not penalize Bounedjah during the match, the matter should not be revisited. The Qatar Football Association supported this view, stating the gesture indicated a minor offside discrepancy rather than an accusation of bribery. The case centered on whether the protest was admissible under AFC regulations, which require protests to be submitted in writing within two hours of the match, followed by a detailed report within 48 hours. The appellants disputed the validity of the protest, questioning its timing and the interpretation of the gesture.
The case proceeded to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), where the panel examined the facts, evidence, and legal arguments. The key issues were whether the AFC’s decision constituted a formal ruling affecting legal rights and whether the appellants had sufficiently proven their claims. The panel emphasized that a decision’s substance, not its form, determines its legal effect, and the burden of proof rested on the appellants to substantiate their arguments. The AFC maintained that the protest complied with procedural requirements and warranted disciplinary action, arguing the gesture was a universal symbol for money and discredited the game’s integrity. Witness statements from the assistant referee and center referee supported this, as neither understood the gesture as related to the offside decision.
The CAS panel confirmed its jurisdiction and deemed the appeal admissible, as it was filed within the stipulated 21-day period. The panel dismissed the appellants’ claims of procedural deficiencies, stating the charge notice was an allegation, not a prejudgment, and that the AFC’s judicial bodies operated independently. The panel concluded that the exemption under Article 59.3 of the AFC Regulations did not apply, as the center referee had not made a decision regarding the incident, making the protest admissible. The panel upheld the AFC Appeal Committee’s decision, dismissing the appeal and allowing disciplinary proceedings to proceed. The case highlighted the complexities of interpreting on-field conduct and the procedural rigor required in disciplinary disputes within football governance.