The case involves a dispute between the South African Football Association (SAFA) and the Confederation of African Football (CAF) regarding SAFA's withdrawal from the 2020 Africa Futsal Cup of Nations (AFCON) tournament. The tournament was scheduled in Laâyoune, a city in the disputed territory of Western Sahara, which conflicted with South Africa's foreign policy. SAFA, following advice from the South African government, requested CAF to relocate the tournament outside Western Sahara, citing political and diplomatic concerns. When CAF declined, SAFA withdrew its team 15 days before the tournament, invoking force majeure. CAF's Disciplinary Board fined SAFA $75,000 and suspended it from the next two editions of the tournament, citing violations of Article 74 of the Futsal AFCON Regulations, which penalizes late withdrawals unless due to force majeure. SAFA appealed to CAF's Appeal Board, which upheld the sanctions, leading SAFA to challenge the decision at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS panel examined whether SAFA's withdrawal qualified as force majeure under Swiss law, which requires an extraordinary, uncontrollable event that makes compliance impossible. The panel noted that while political considerations were significant, they did not meet the high threshold for force majeure, as SAFA could have participated despite government advice. The panel also clarified that only CAF, not its disciplinary bodies or secretary general, could be sued under Swiss law. Ultimately, the CAS upheld CAF's sanctions, ruling that SAFA's withdrawal was not justified under force majeure and that the penalties were proportionate under the regulations. The decision reinforced the principle that sporting bodies must adhere to competition rules unless exceptional circumstances prevent participation.
SAFA argued that its withdrawal was compelled by South African government policy on Western Sahara, which prohibited participation in the tournament held in the disputed territory. It claimed that CAF failed to respond to its request to change the venue, violating its own regulations. SAFA also questioned the legitimacy of the Organizing Committee, alleging procedural irregularities. Additionally, SAFA referenced a similar withdrawal by the Mauritius futsal team, reinforcing its argument that the tournament's organization was flawed. It contended that the principle of force majeure applied, as the choice of venue was beyond its control, and participating would have violated national policy. SAFA sought the annulment of the tournament, rescheduling in a different Moroccan venue, reinstatement of its team, and the nullification of the fine.
CAF countered that SAFA's withdrawal was unjustified and politically motivated, stating that a government recommendation not to participate did not constitute an unforeseeable or insurmountable obstacle. CAF cited CAS jurisprudence defining force majeure as an objective, uncontrollable event rendering participation impossible, which was not the case here. CAF also highlighted that SAFA's withdrawal violated CAF Statutes, which require member associations to manage their affairs independently and participate in CAF-organized competitions. Regarding procedural fairness, CAF argued that any alleged violations of SAFA's right to a fair hearing were remedied by the CAS's de novo review process.
The CAS panel concluded that SAFA breached Article 74 of the CAF Regulations, as there was no instance of force majeure justifying the withdrawal. The panel noted that SAFA failed to communicate its difficulties with the tournament location to both its government and CAF in a timely manner. SAFA had been aware of the potential issues since December 2019 but only shared the relevant policy document with CAF in January 2020 when it withdrew the team. The panel upheld the prescribed sanctions, including the fine, as SAFA did not demonstrate that the penalty was grossly disproportionate or that it faced unequal treatment. The panel acknowledged that while the withdrawal caused reputational damage to CAF, the fine was justified given the late notice, which disrupted logistical and organizational efforts.
Ultimately, the CAS panel dismissed SAFA's appeal in its entirety, upholding the CAF Appeal Board's decision. The ruling emphasized that SAFA's actions warranted the imposed sanctions, and no further relief or claims were granted. The decision underscores the importance of adherence to regulatory frameworks and timely communication in international sports governance.