CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2013/A/3360 — Federaçâo Cabo-verdiana de Futebol v. FIFA

"Cabo Verde v. FIFA" · CAS dismissed Cabo Verde's appeal, holding that a forfeit of the match where a red card was issued does not extinguish the resulting match suspension.

What happened in Cabo Verde v. FIFA

Player Fernando Varela received a direct red card during the FIFA World Cup 2014 qualifying match on 24 March 2013 between Cabo Verde and Equatorial Guinea. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee suspended him for four matches. Cabo Verde served two of those suspensions before the same match was subsequently declared lost by forfeit by Equatorial Guinea (for fielding an ineligible player), confirmed by the FIFA Appeal Committee on 11 July 2013. Believing the suspension was extinguished under Article 19.5 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC), Cabo Verde fielded Varela in the match against Tunisia on 7 September 2013. FIFA's Disciplinary Committee declared that match lost by forfeit 3-0 and imposed a CHF 6,000 fine. The FIFA Appeal Committee confirmed that decision on 23 September 2013. Cabo Verde appealed to CAS, arguing that Article 19.5 FDC, read with Article 18.4 FDC, meant the suspension was 'no longer pending' once the original match was forfeited. The CAS panel dismissed the appeal, holding that Article 19.5 FDC addresses the match in which a suspension is to be served, not the match in which the red card was issued, and that Article 18.4 FDC expressly preserves suspensions regardless of subsequent forfeit. The case matters because it authoritatively separates the disciplinary consequences of a red card from the sporting consequences of a forfeit.

Procedural history of CAS 2013/A/3360

On 7 May 2013, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee issued Decision No. 130279 suspending player Fernando Varela for four matches following a red card in the Cabo Verde v. Equatorial Guinea qualifier on 24 March 2013. On 12 September 2013, the Disciplinary Committee declared the Tunisia v. Cabo Verde match of 7 September 2013 lost by forfeit 3-0 and imposed a CHF 6,000 fine on Cabo Verde for fielding the ineligible Varela, in violation of Article 55.1 FDC and Article 8 of the FWC Regulations. Cabo Verde appealed to the FIFA Appeal Committee, which on 23 September 2013 confirmed the Disciplinary Committee's decision in its entirety. The AC Decision was notified to Cabo Verde on 1 October 2013. On 11 October 2013, Cabo Verde filed its statement of appeal with CAS under Article R48 of the CAS Code, seeking to set aside the AC Decision and be reinstated in the World Cup qualification process. CAS was asked to determine whether Article 19.5 FDC extinguished the remaining suspension.

Key holdings in CAS 2013/A/3360

• Article 18.4 FDC expressly provides that an expulsion automatically incurs suspension from the subsequent match even if imposed in a match that is later abandoned, annulled and/or forfeited, and this rule admits no distinction between 'automatic' and 'extended' suspensions.
• Article 19.5 FDC provides an exception to Article 19.4 FDC — addressing the match in which a suspension is to be served — and not an exception to Article 18.4 FDC, which governs the match in which the red card was issued.
• The 'no longer pending' language of Article 19.5 FDC refers to the match in which the suspension is to be served being retroactively forfeited, not to the match in which the original expulsion occurred.
• Information published on the FIFA website is not legally binding and cannot supersede the decisions of FIFA's disciplinary bodies or the effect of the FDC rules; an association that relies on website information without contacting FIFA does so at its own risk.
• The interpretation of sports association rules must start with the wording of the rule, consider the objectively construed intentions of the drafting body, and take account of the regulatory context in which the rule is located.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The panel began with the established CAS interpretive approach: start with the plain wording of the rule, consider grammar and syntax, identify the objectively construed intentions of the drafting body, and examine the regulatory context (citing CAS 2008/A/1673; CAS 2009/A/1811 and Swiss Federal Court decisions). Applying this method, the panel found Article 18.4 FDC unambiguous: a suspension triggered by a red card survives any subsequent forfeit of the match. The panel rejected Cabo Verde's distinction between 'automatic' and 'extended' suspensions as unreasonable and unsupported by the text, noting it would produce the absurd result that only the most serious disciplinary infringements would benefit from the 'curing' effect of a forfeit. On Article 19.5 FDC, the panel read it within the structure of Article 19 as a whole: paragraphs 1–4 govern how suspensions are served; paragraph 5 is an exception to paragraph 4, not to Article 18.4. The reference to a 'retroactively forfeited' match in Article 19.5 is the match in which the suspension was to be served, not the match in which the red card was given. The panel also rejected the good-faith/website argument, noting FIFA conceded the website error but holding that Cabo Verde, having received a detailed written decision specifying the matches of suspension, could not rely on a website entry without making further inquiries.

Why Cabo Verde v. FIFA matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award establishes a clear boundary between the sporting consequences of a forfeit and the disciplinary consequences of a red card under the FIFA Disciplinary Code. It authoritatively holds that Article 19.5 FDC is an exception to Article 19.4 FDC only, not to Article 18.4 FDC, preventing players from escaping match suspensions through the forfeiture of the match in which they were sent off. It also warns associations that FIFA website information carries no legal force and cannot substitute for formal disciplinary decisions.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2008/A/1673 CAS 2009/A/1811

Frequently asked questions about Cabo Verde v. FIFA

Did the forfeit of the Equatorial Guinea match cancel Fernando Varela's suspension under Article 19.5 FDC?

No. The CAS panel held that Article 19.5 FDC applies to the match in which a suspension is to be served being retroactively forfeited, not to the match in which the red card was originally issued. Because Varela's red card was given in the Equatorial Guinea match and his remaining suspensions were to be served in future matches, the forfeit of the Equatorial Guinea match had no effect on those pending suspensions under Article 18.4 FDC.

Can a national association rely on the FIFA website to determine whether a player's suspension is still in force?

No. The panel held that information on the FIFA website is not legally binding and cannot supersede the decisions of FIFA's disciplinary bodies or the rules of the FDC. FIFA conceded the website had incorrectly removed the red card reference, but the panel found that Cabo Verde, having received a detailed written decision specifying the four-match suspension, was required to contact FIFA directly rather than rely on the website before fielding the player.

What is the difference between Article 18.4 and Article 19.5 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code as interpreted in this case?

Article 18.4 FDC governs the match in which an expulsion occurs and provides that the resulting suspension survives any subsequent abandonment, annulment or forfeit of that match. Article 19.5 FDC governs the serving of a suspension and provides that a suspension is 'no longer pending' if the match in which it was to be served is retroactively forfeited because an ineligible player was fielded. The panel held these are separate rules operating in different contexts, and Article 19.5 is an exception to Article 19.4, not to Article 18.4.

What sanction did Cabo Verde receive for fielding Fernando Varela against Tunisia on 7 September 2013?

The FIFA Disciplinary Committee declared the Tunisia v. Cabo Verde match of 7 September 2013 lost by forfeit 3-0 and imposed a fine of CHF 6,000 on Cabo Verde, pursuant to Article 55.1 FDC and Article 8 of the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil Regulations. Both the FIFA Appeal Committee and CAS confirmed these sanctions in their entirety.

Topics: Doping, ethics & governance at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.