The case CAS 2021/A/8403 involved Royal AM Football Club appealing against decisions made by the South African Football Association (SAFA), the National Soccer League (NSL), and other football clubs. The dispute originated from a match in the 2020/2021 GladAfrica Championship, where Sekhukhune United FC protested Polokwane City FC's failure to field the required number of under-23 players. The NSL Disciplinary Committee initially ruled in Sekhukhune's favor, deducting points from Polokwane, but an arbitration award by Adv Hilton Epstein SC later overturned this, declaring Polokwane had forfeited the match. The NSL initially refused to implement the Epstein Award, leading to litigation in South African courts, which ultimately upheld the award and crowned Sekhukhune as league champions, promoting them to the NSL Premiership. Royal AM, which had initially finished first, was relegated to a playoff but chose not to participate, later seeking to appeal the Epstein Award at CAS.
CAS initially rejected Royal AM's appeal as untimely. Royal AM then requested SAFA to refer the dispute to arbitration under SAFA’s statutes, but SAFA refused, stating Royal AM was not a party to the original dispute and that the Epstein Award was final. Royal AM subsequently filed a statement of appeal with CAS, challenging SAFA's refusal. The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Luigi Fumagalli, Mr. David Phillips QC, and Judge Rauf Soulio, examined whether it had jurisdiction, emphasizing that arbitration requires consent, either through a specific agreement or institutional rules. The panel found that SAFA and the NSL had not established provisions in their statutes or regulations granting a right of appeal to CAS, meaning CAS lacked jurisdiction.
The respondents, including the NSL, opposed the appeal, arguing that CAS lacked jurisdiction because SAFA’s statutes did not explicitly allow such appeals and that the High Court’s decision was final. They also raised procedural deficiencies, such as Royal AM’s failure to include witness statements and its alleged lack of standing due to the sale of its football activities. The panel concluded that without explicit consent or regulatory framework, CAS could not intervene, reinforcing the principle that jurisdiction depends on the parties' agreement or institutional rules. The case highlighted the importance of clear arbitration clauses in sports governance to ensure legal certainty and access to dispute resolution mechanisms.
Ultimately, the CAS panel dismissed the appeal, ruling it had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute. The decision underscored that CAS cannot hear appeals against national federation decisions unless explicitly permitted by the federation’s regulations, affirming the limited scope of CAS jurisdiction in such cases. The outcome emphasized the need for clarity in sports governance structures to avoid similar disputes in the future.