The case involves a complex arbitration dispute between Wydad Athletic Club (WAC), the Confederation of African Football (CAF), and Espérance Sportive de Tunis (EST) concerning the forfeiture of the second leg of the 2018/2019 CAF Champions League final. The match, held on 31 May 2019, was interrupted after WAC refused to continue playing due to the unavailability of the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) system. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on 18 September 2020, addressing key legal principles such as res judicata and the consequences of VAR absence. The panel clarified that res judicata applies only to arbitral awards and court decisions, not to rulings by sports federation tribunals, as these lack the same legal authority under Swiss law.
The panel ruled that the absence of VAR did not violate the principle of equal chances, as both teams were equally affected. The International Football Association Board (IFAB) VAR Protocol states that VAR absence does not invalidate a match, meaning it is not a fundamental condition for the game’s validity. Consequently, WAC’s refusal to resume play constituted an abandonment under Article 148 of the CAF Disciplinary Code, leading to a forfeit and a minimum fine of $20,000. The panel also dismissed WAC’s claims about unsafe playing conditions, such as poor visibility and security concerns, finding no evidence that these factors justified the match’s interruption. Testimonies from the referee, match commissioner, and CAF officials supported this conclusion.
The dispute highlighted procedural and jurisdictional complexities, including WAC’s standing to appeal certain decisions and the applicability of the ne bis in idem principle, which prevents double jeopardy. The panel determined that WAC’s appeal was admissible but ultimately upheld CAF’s disciplinary measures, reinforcing the principle that teams must adhere to match protocols unless fundamental conditions are breached. The ruling confirmed EST’s victory and dismissed WAC’s requests for a match replay or declaration as champions. The case underscores the challenges of managing high-stakes football matches and the importance of proper officiating and security measures. It also clarifies the limits of CAS’s jurisdiction and the finality of prior disciplinary decisions in sports arbitration. The panel’s decision emphasized procedural fairness and the right to appeal while maintaining the integrity of competition rules.
In conclusion, the CAS award confirmed that WAC’s refusal to play due to VAR unavailability was unjustified, resulting in a forfeit. The ruling also clarified the limits of res judicata in sports arbitration, distinguishing between formal legal decisions and internal federation rulings. The case serves as a precedent for handling similar disputes in the future, highlighting the balance between fairness, accountability, and the enforcement of sports regulations. The outcome reinforces the importance of adhering to competition rules and the limited grounds for contesting match outcomes based on procedural irregularities.