The case involves a dispute between the Union Sportive de la Médina d’Alger (USMA) and the Algerian Football Federation (FAF), the Algerian Professional Football League (LPF), and the Mouloudia Club d’Alger (MCA). The conflict arose when USMA refused to participate in a match against MCA on October 12, 2019, citing violations of regulations by the LPF. The match was rescheduled during a FIFA international break, contrary to Article 29.3 of the Algerian Professional Football League regulations, which mandates a pause in the league during FIFA dates. USMA argued that the rescheduling deprived them of a key player called up for international duty. After their request to postpone the match was denied, USMA boycotted the game, leading to disciplinary sanctions by the LPF’s Disciplinary Commission, including a forfeit, a three-point deduction, a fine, and loss of television revenue.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) examined the case, focusing on jurisdiction, procedural admissibility, and the merits of the dispute. The CAS affirmed its jurisdiction under Article 69 of the FAF statutes, rejecting a literal interpretation that would conflict with FIFA regulations and the principle of equal treatment. It ruled that including the original decision-maker, the Algerian Tribunal for the Resolution of Sports Disputes (TARLS), as a respondent was unnecessary since it acted in a judicial capacity. The CAS also found that USMA had exhausted all internal remedies, including appeals to the FAF’s Federal Appeals Commission and the TARLS, within the required timeframes.
On the merits, the CAS determined that the FAF’s Federal Bureau lacked the authority to unilaterally amend the championship regulations without approval from the FAF’s General Assembly, as required by its statutes. The decision to schedule the match during a FIFA break violated Article 78.2 of the FAF statutes, which mandates compliance with FIFA’s international match calendar. The CAS also noted unequal treatment by the LPF, as it had previously postponed a match for another club due to national team commitments but refused USMA’s similar request.
The CAS upheld USMA’s appeal, annulling the disciplinary sanctions and declaring the LPF’s scheduling decision null and void. It ordered the LPF to reschedule the USMA-MCA match outside FIFA dates and adjust the league standings accordingly. The decision reinforced the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and respecting international football calendars, emphasizing that executive bodies cannot unilaterally modify regulations without proper authority. The case highlights the tension between domestic football governance and international obligations, underscoring the need for compliance with higher regulatory frameworks and equal treatment of clubs. The CAS’s ruling serves as a precedent for ensuring procedural fairness and regulatory adherence in sports disputes.