Ofosu Appiah v. Latvian Football Federation (LFF)

At a glance

Parties

Ofosu Appiah (Ghanaian footballer, FC Noah Jurmala) v. Latvian Football Federation (LFF)

Case no.

CAS 2021/A/8453

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeals procedure, CAS Code (2021 edition)

Treaty

None; appeal under Articles 58(4) and 62 of the LFF Statutes

Tribunal

Frans de Weger (Sole Arbitrator)

Sector

Football; disciplinary (match-fixing)

Outcome

Appeal partially upheld (18 April 2023): the match-fixing sanction was annulled, and the damages claim was held inadmissible.

Amount

Sanction annulled: 12-month ban and EUR 1,000 fine. Damages claimed: EUR 23,200 (inadmissible). Legal costs claimed: CHF 25,000. The costs orders are not reproduced in the published text.

The dispute

Ofosu Appiah, a Ghanaian defender playing for FC Noah Jurmala, took part in a Latvian Optibet Premier League match on 29 May 2021 that FK Liepāja won 5-0. Betting alerts from UEFA's Betting Fraud Detection System (BFDS), Sport Integrity Team and Starlizard led the LFF to investigate. Its Independent Commission, which analysed the match video, named Appiah among the players directly involved in manipulating the result. The LFF Ethics Committee banned him for 12 months from all LFF competitions and fined him EUR 1,000 under Article 10.3 of Annex 1 to the LFF Disciplinary Regulations, and the LFF Appeals Committee upheld the sanction on 25 October 2021. Before CAS, Appiah argued that his due process rights were breached because four of the reports relied on were not disclosed to him, that none of the evidence linked him to match-fixing, and that he was entitled to EUR 23,200 in damages. The LFF argued that it had acted within its regulations, that any procedural defects were cured by the de novo appeal, that the player's new evidence should be excluded, and that his damages claim was a new and inadmissible claim.

Key holdings

1. The player's new evidence was admitted under Article R57.3: the Expert Report of Aitor Karanka and his correspondence with a scout and with his agent. The discretion to exclude evidence must be exercised with caution. Here the evidence was in line with the player's earlier arguments, and the LFF did not substantiate any abusive procedural behaviour. ¶¶ 69–73
2. The four undisclosed documents (the Match Referee Report, the Referee Inspector Report, the Head of Football Report and the Starlizard Alert) should have been given to the player before the Appealed Decision was issued. However, the full de novo hearing before CAS cured that defect, so the decision is not null and void on that ground. ¶¶ 75–81
3. The LFF bears the burden of proof, and the standard is comfortable satisfaction. Because the allegation is serious, a high degree of confidence in the quality of the evidence is required. The LFF's failure to explain the instructions, mandate and composition of the expert groups reduced the weight of their reports. ¶¶ 87–92
4. The BFDS Match Report is valuable evidence that a match was manipulated, but on its own it cannot link a player to the manipulation, and it did not mention Appiah. The betting reports, the vague and late Match Referee Report, the Referee Inspector Report and the Head of Football Report did not link him either. The Independent Commission's seven observations of poor defending were outweighed by the expert evidence that the errors were consistent with his style of play. ¶¶ 93–119
5. The LFF failed to establish with comfortable satisfaction that Appiah was involved in match-fixing or breached the principles of fair play. Even if the match was manipulated, taking part in it does not by itself prove involvement. The sanction was set aside, and item 3.3 of Ethics Committee decision no. 3/2021 was annulled. ¶¶ 120–125; operative part
6. The EUR 23,200 damages claim was inadmissible because it went beyond the scope of the previous litigation, and the player showed no legitimate reason for not raising it earlier. The Sole Arbitrator added that CAS appeared to lack jurisdiction over the claim under the LFF Statutes, and that the claim's merits were doubtful in any event. The unpaid EUR 1,000 fine no longer has to be paid. ¶¶ 129–138

Procedural history

1. 29 May 2021FC Noah Jurmala lost 0-5 to FK Liepāja. Betting alerts followed and the LFF opened an investigation.
2. 9 August 2021LFF Ethics Committee decision no. 3/2021 imposed a 12-month ban and a EUR 1,000 fine on Appiah. A summary of the decision had been communicated on 15 July 2021.
3. 25 October 2021The LFF Appeals Committee dismissed Appiah's appeal of 11 August 2021.
4. 16 November 2021Statement of Appeal filed with CAS.
5. 19 January 2022Frans de Weger appointed Sole Arbitrator.
6. 24 February 2022Hearing held by video-conference.
7. 18 April 2023Award: appeal partially upheld; the sanction was annulled and the damages claim held inadmissible.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Frans de Weger Sole arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the institution

For the claimant

William Sternheimer · Imen Larabi · Sam Comb

For the respondent

Pāvels Tjuševs

Experts

Aitor Karanka (claimant)

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• match-fixing
• football
• Latvia
• BFDS
• Betting Fraud Detection System
• comfortable satisfaction
• burden of proof
• de novo review
• Article R57 CAS Code
• new evidence
• due process
• curing of procedural defects
• scope of appeal
• new claims
• damages
• disqualification
• Starlizard
• FC Noah Jurmala

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.