The dispute between Al-Merrikh Sports Club and the Sudan Football Association (SFA) revolves around the governance and internal management of the club, particularly the legitimacy of its Board of Directors. The conflict began in 2020 when the SFA attempted to intervene in the club's affairs by replacing its executive body with a "normalisation committee," a move FIFA found lacked statutory basis. Despite FIFA's advice for collaboration, tensions escalated, leading to the SFA establishing a Tripartite Committee to oversee the club's executive matters. This committee later barred the club's president, Mr. Adam Abdallah Adam, from his role, prompting the club to challenge these actions as legally unfounded. The case was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which examined procedural issues, including the admissibility of documents submitted after the appeal brief and the validity of the SFA's decisions. The CAS emphasized that parties generally cannot introduce new evidence after filing an appeal unless exceptional circumstances exist and noted that decisions relying on annulled rulings lose their legal basis.
The dispute intensified in 2021 when two separate General Assemblies were held on September 4, 2021—one at Al-Merrikh Stadium, electing Mr. Adam as President, and another at Al-Mawrada Park, supervised by the Tripartite Committee, electing Mr. Hazim Mustafa as President. The SFA later approved the Tripartite Committee's report, recognizing Mr. Mustafa's election and dissolving the committee. The SFA's Disciplinary Committee initially dropped violations against Mr. Adam, citing jurisdictional issues, but the SFA's Appeal Committee later revoked part of this decision, upholding the Tripartite Committee's authority. The conflicting decisions led to multiple appeals to the CAS, which granted a stay of execution concerning the SFA's September 8, 2021 decision but dismissed other provisional measures.
The CAS proceedings revealed procedural complexities, including delays, administrative errors, and disputes over admissibility. The arbitration panel, constituted in February 2022, ruled the club's supplementary report inadmissible due to lack of exceptional circumstances and proceeded based on written submissions, as neither party requested a hearing. The club argued that the SFA's intervention violated its statutes, which require the Electoral Committee to be elected by the General Assembly, not appointed by the Tripartite Committee. It also claimed the General Assembly at Al-Mawrada Park was flawed due to procedural irregularities, including an invalid voter list. The SFA countered that its intervention was necessary to resolve the club's internal crisis, asserting the electoral process complied with its statutes and was supervised by the SFA.
In its final award on June 10, 2022, the CAS annulled the SFA's decision recognizing Mr. Mustafa's board, ruling it was not elected in compliance with the club's statutes. The Panel found the Electoral Appeal Committee's decision relied on an annulled SFA ruling and thus lacked a valid legal basis. Consequently, the CAS upheld the club's appeal, nullifying the Electoral Appeal Committee's decision of November 10, 2021, and dismissing all other claims. The case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules and jurisdictional limits in football governance, reinforcing the principle that such governance must align with established regulations and due process.