The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on December 15, 2020, in the dispute between Al Hilal Club and the Confederation of African Football (CAF). The case stemmed from disciplinary sanctions imposed on Al Hilal due to misconduct by its supporters during a CAF Champions League match against Al Ahly on February 1, 2020. The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Ulrich Haas, Prof. Jacopo Tognon, and Mr. Manfred Nan, addressed key legal principles, including procedural fairness, strict liability of clubs for supporter conduct, and the proportionality of sanctions. The panel emphasized that parties subject to disciplinary measures must have the opportunity to defend themselves, either orally or in writing, and that decisions must include clear legal reasoning.
The incidents during the match included the throwing of objects, use of laser lights, verbal abuse by an Al Hilal official, and a nine-minute stoppage due to fan encroachment. Al Ahly also reported threats on social media and unsafe conditions. CAF’s Disciplinary Board imposed a four-match spectator ban and a $100,000 fine on Al Hilal. The club appealed, arguing procedural violations and disproportionate sanctions, but the CAF Appeals Board upheld the decision. Al Hilal then appealed to CAS, contesting the lack of legal reasoning and fairness in the proceedings.
The CAS panel found that CAF had breached Al Hilal’s right to a fair hearing by failing to provide adequate reasoning or allow the club to present its case fully. However, the panel noted that CAS proceedings allow for a de novo review, mitigating prior procedural flaws. The panel upheld the principle of strict liability, holding Al Hilal accountable for its supporters' actions, regardless of stadium security arrangements. While acknowledging the severity of the incidents, the panel adjusted the sanctions to ensure proportionality, reducing the fine to $60,000 and the spectator ban to three matches, with part of the penalty suspended pending good behavior.
The ruling reinforced the importance of procedural fairness and transparent decision-making in sports governance. It also highlighted the balance between disciplinary autonomy and judicial oversight, ensuring that sanctions are justified and proportionate. The CAS decision serves as a reminder that while sports bodies have discretion in disciplinary matters, their actions must adhere to fundamental principles of fairness and accountability. The case underscores the challenges of managing fan behavior and the legal complexities involved in upholding disciplinary standards in football.