Tema Youth Football Club v. Ghana Football Association (GFA)

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. Below is a summary of the main relevant facts and allegations based on the Parties’ written submissions, pleadings and evidence adduced during these proceedings. Additional facts and allegations may be set out, where relevant, in connection with the legal discussion that follows. Although the Panel has considered all the facts, allegations, legal arguments and evidence submitted by the Parties in the present proceedings, it refers in this Award only to the submissions and evidence it considers necessary to explain its reasoning.

4. On 30 October 2013, D. signed an employment contract with Amidaus Professional Football Club (“Amidaus”) for a period of 3 years, terminating on 30 August 2016. D. has a date of birth of 11 January 1994 and a licence number of […] and was registered with Amidaus with these details.

5. At the end of the 2013/14 First Capital Plus Premier League season, Amidaus was relegated to the GN Bank Division One League.

6. On 15 October 2014, D. was transferred from Amidaus to Dreams Football Club (“Dreams”) and registered with Dreams.

7. On 25 July 2015, Tema and Dreams played each other in a match in the GN Bank Division One League, taking place at Kweiman Park in Accra, Ghana (“the Match”). During the Match, Dreams fielded two players named C. and J. (the “Players”). Tema lost the Match 2-0.

8. At the end of the 2014/2015 season, Dreams finished in first place with a total of 56 points and were therefore promoted to the Premier League. Tema finished the season in second place with a total of 49 points and remained in Division One.

Proceedings before the GFA Disciplinary Committee

9. On 4 August 2015, Tema filed a protest with the Disciplinary Committee of the Ghana Football Association (the “GFA DC”) against Dreams alleging that Dreams fielded two ineligible players during the Match. Tema contended that Dreams had committed fraud by registering the player D. as C. and O. as J., forging their names and dates of birth. Tema requested the following relief:

“1. To declare Dreams FC as losers of the 24th Week fixture as per article 34(1)(e). 2. Three points and three goals should be awarded to Tema Youth FC as per 34(2) of the General Regulations. 3. Application of sanction under article 34(5)(a)”.

10. On 6 August 2015, Tema wrote to the GFA General Secretary requesting that records relating to the two players concerned within their protest (i.e. D./C. and O./J.) are made available to the GFA DC.

11. Dreams did not file a Statement of Defence within the required timeframe, i.e. within 3 days of receiving a copy of the protest.

12. On 17 August 2015, the GFA DC rendered a decision (the “GFA DC Decision”), dismissing Tema’s protest as follows:

“1. That having failed to establish that the two players were unqualified players when they played in the Match Day 24 GN Bank Division One League (Zone 3) game between Dreams FC and Tema Youth FC, the protest of Tema Youth FC is hereby dismissed in accordance with Article 37(16) of the GFA General Regulations. 2. That for bringing a frivolous Protest before the Disciplinary Committee, Tema Youth FC is hereby fined One Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHc 1,000) in accordance with Article 37(16) of the General Regulations which shall be paid to the GFA within fourteen (14) days upon receipt of this Ruling, failing which Tema Youth FC shall automatically forfeit all subsequent matches after the said deadline by the Division One League Board or the GFA in accordance with Articles 39(8)(b), 39(8)(d) and 39(8)(f) of the First Amendment to the GFA General Regulations. 3. That should any party be dissatisfied with or aggrieved by this Decision, the party has within three (3) days of being notified of this Ruling to appeal to the Appeals Committee of the Ghana Football Association (See Article 37(11) of the General Regulations of the GFA)”.

13. On 20 August 2015, Tema filed an appeal against the GDA DC Decision before the Appeals Committee of the GFA (the “GFA AC”).

14. On 11 September 2015, the GFA AC set aside the fine imposed on Tema but upheld the remainder of the GFA DC Decision (the “First GFA AC Decision”).

15. On 14 September 2015, the First GFA AC Decision was communicated to Tema.

16. On 17 September 2015, Tema filed for a review with the GFA AC and requested that the GFA AC review the First GFA AC Decision.

17. On 5 November 2015, the GFA AC rendered the following decision (“the Appealed Decision”):

“1. This is an application for review of the Appeals Committee’s (AC’s) decision dated 11 th September, 2015 which upheld the Disciplinary Committee’s (DC’s) decision concerning the eligibility of two players of the respondents who featured in the GN Bank Division One league match day 24 game played between the parties herein at Kweiman park. 2. The applicants’ case was that the respondents were involved in fraudulent deals or acts in the process of registration of those players thereby making the players unqualified to play in that match. 3. The DC found that there was no evidence adduced by the applicants in support of their allegation of fraud and consequently dismissed the protest, which decision was upheld by the AC. It is against this decision that the instant application for review has been initiated.

4. We deem it appropriate to state the legal position regarding the review jurisdiction of the AC. In the decision of the AC in the case of Tano Bofoakwa FC versus B.A. United FC dated 2nd May, 2014, the AC expressed itself as follows; … 5. In the instant case, it has not been demonstrated before us by the applicants that there had been some fundamental or basic error which the AC inadvertently committed in the cause of delivering its earlier decision and that error had occasioned a miscarriage of justice. Neither have the applicants shown that they have discovered any new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence could not be obtained or discovered by them. 6. In fact, upon careful examination of the record before us, we have no difficulty in concluding that the instant application constitutes nothing but a further appeal by which the applicants have canvassed previous arguments which were considered by the AC in delivering its earlier decision. We find the conditions precedent for a successful invocation of the review jurisdiction non-existent in this case. 7. In the result, we shall decline the invitation by the applicants to review our earlier decision. Accordingly, the application fails and same is hereby dismissed. 8. No costs is awarded [sic]”.

18. On 11 November 2015, the Appealed Decision was communicated to Tema.

Parallel proceedings before the GFA DC

19. On 28 September 2015, the GFA Prosecutor sent C. and Dreams a charge sheet which stated as follows:

“Statement of Offence [C.] is hereby charged for breaching Articles 26(3)(b) of the GFA General Regulations in the 2013-14 football season. Particulars of the Office That you, [C.], in the 2013-14 football season registered for two clubs one [sic] in two different division under different names ([E. and C.] respectively) and different date of birth of births [sic] contrary to GFA Regulations”.

20. In or around October 2015, C. submitted his written statement of defence pleading guilty to the charges and waived his right to a personal hearing.

21. On 13 October 2015, the GFA DC rendered a decision as follows:

“1. That the Disciplinary Committee having satisfied itself that the evidence adduced before it supports the charge, hereby imposes a ban 6 matches on [C./D.] for the forgery of his documents (i.e. for changing it illegally or wrongly).

2. That the Disciplinary Committee having satisfied itself that the evidence adduced before it supports the charge, hereby imposes a ban of one (1) football season on [C./D.] for double registration in the 2013 season. 3. That the bans stated in Decisions 1 and 2 above shall run concurrently with the effect being that the player will serve a ban of one (1) football season starting immediately. 4. That after having served the ban, [D./C.] must use available legal steps to correct his identification. 5. That should any party be dissatisfied with or aggrieved by this Decision, the party has within three (3) days of being notified of this Ruling to appeal to the Appeals Committee (See Article 37(11) of the General Regulations of the GFA)”.

Parallel proceedings before the GFA Players’ Status Committee

22. In or around October 2015, Amidaus filed a claim in front of the Players’ Status Committee of the GFA (the “GFA PSC”) against Dreams regarding the transfer and registration of D. as C.

23. On 5 November 2015, the GFA PSC ruled as follows (the “GFA PSC Decision”):

“- The registration of [C.] by Botwey Youth F.C is declared null and void. - The GFA Ethics Committee should investigate the registration of the player and that all those found culpable in the fictitious registration of [C.] by Botwey Youth F.C should be dealt with”.

24. The reasoning for the GFA PSC Decision was as follows:

“- There was enough evidence that the player [D.] is the same as [C.].

• That the player indeed registered and played for Amidaus Professionals during the 2013/14 season and that his details were falsified to enable him register for a third Division Club by name Botwey Youth F.C.

• The Committee was not satisfied that Botwey Youth had the right to release the Player [C.] to Dreams F.C.

• The Committee was satisfied that the release agreement dated 15th October, 2014 between Amidaus Professionals and Dreams F.C as regards the player [D.] is binding.

• That the purported registration of [C.] by Botwey Youth F.C was improper and fictitious”.

III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

25. On 30 November 2015, pursuant to Articles R47 and R51 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (the “CAS Code”), Tema filed a Statement of Appeal/Appeal Brief against the Appealed Decision at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“the CAS”). The Appeal Brief was directed only against the GFA and contained the following requests for relief:

“(1) The Decision subject to Appeal (including the decision of September 14, 2015 of the same Appeals Committee) shall be annulled.

(2) The Respondent shall be obliged to declare Tema Youth FC as winners of the match day 24 played at Kweiman with 3 (three) points and 3 (three goals) and a further deduction of 6 (six) points from the accumulated build-up of Dreams FC as stated under article 34 of the General Regulations of the Respondent. (3) That Dreams FC be demoted to a lower division for fraudulent and fictitious registration of [D.] and [O.] with the intention of concealing the true ages of the players and in the case of the former, to conceal 25% interest stakes Amidaus Professionals have in the player [D.] for which the two clubs duly signed a binding Release Agreement to that effect in accordance with FIFA Regulations on Status and Transfer of player Annex 3 Article 9.4. (4) In accordance with request No. 2 the Respondent shall be obligated to correct the 2014-2015 Division One League Table and Tema Youth Club be declared as eventual champions with 52 points and thus promoted to play in the First Capital Plus Premier League for the 2015-2016-league season. (5) The Respondent shall be obligated to rectify the records of [D. (C.)] and [O. (J.)] with Dreams FC to reflect their initial records in the Transfer Matching System (TMS) and not the fictitious and improper records uploaded by Dreams FC. (6) The Respondent shall bear the costs of this arbitral proceeding and contribute an amount of the legal costs of the Appellant according to Article R64.5 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration”.

26. In accordance with Article R37 of the CAS Code, Tema also requested the following provisional measures:

“(1) The execution of the Decision (and consequentially also of the decision of the Respondent of November 11 2015) shall be suspended until CAS has rendered its final decision in the Appeal Proceeding. (2) Until final decision of the CAS, the Respondent shall postpone the start of the 2015-2016 Ghana Premier League and the Ghana Division One League”.

27. On 1 December 2015, the CAS Court Office wrote to Tema acknowledging receipt of the Statement of Appeal/Appeal Brief and advised Tema that in order to be able to initiate an arbitration procedure, Tema were required to complete their Appeal by 4 December 2015 by providing the CAS Court office with the nomination of an arbitrator, unless the appointment of a sole arbitrator was requested.

28. On 4 December 2015, Tema wrote to the CAS Court Office nominating Dr. Marco Balmelli, Attorney-at-Law, Basel, Switzerland as an arbitrator.

29. On 8 December 2015 Tema filed a ‘supplemental brief’ which was aimed at amending the Statement of Appeal filed on 30 November 2015, and sought to join Dreams and FIFA as Respondents as well as the GFA. This ‘supplemental brief’ contained the following requests for relief:

“(1) The Decision subject to Appeal (including the decision of September 14, 2015 of the same Appeals Committee) shall be annulled.

(2) That pursuant to R44.4 of the CAS Code, the CAS order an expedited hearing in this matter in respect of which appropriate directions may be issued. (3) That an injunction issue, enjoining [t]he commencement of the 2015/16 until a resolution of this matter. (4) That an order issue, ordering the GFA and FIFA be joined as necessary and interested party Respondents. (5) The Respondent shall be obliged to declare Tema Youth FC as winners of the match day 24 played at Kweiman with 3 (three) points and 3 (three goals) and a further deduction of 6 (six) points from the accumulated build-up of Dreams FC as stated under article 34 of the General Regulations of the Respondent. (6) That Dreams FC be demoted to a lower division for fraudulent and fictitious registration of [D.] and [O.] with the intention of concealing the true ages of the players and in the case of the former, to conceal 25% interest stakes Amidaus Professionals FC have in the player [D.] for which the two clubs duly signed a binding Release Agreement to that effect in accordance with FIFA Regulations on Status and Transfer of player Annex 3 Article 9.4. (7) In accordance with request No. 2 the Respondent shall be obligated to correct the 2014-2015 Division One League Table and Tema Youth Club be declared as eventual champions with 52 points and thus promoted to play in the First Capital Plus Premier League for the 2015-2016-league season. (8) The GFA shall be obligated to rectify the records of [D.] [(C.)] and [O.] [(J.)] with Dreams FC to reflect their initial records in the Transfer Matching System (TMS) and not the fictitious and improper records uploaded by Dreams FC. (9) The Dreams FC shall bear the costs of this arbitral proceeding and contribute an amount of the legal costs of the Appellant according to Article R64.5 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration”.

30. In accordance with Article R37 of the CAS Code, Tema also requested in its ‘supplemental brief’ the following provisional measures:

“(1) The execution of the Decision (and consequentially also of the decision of the [GFA] of November 11, 2015) shall be suspended and the 2015/16 Ghana Premier shall be enjoined from commencing until CAS has rendered its final decision in this matter”.

31. On 11 December 2015, the CAS Court Office wrote to the Parties acknowledging that the Statement of Appeal/Appeal Brief was completed on 9 December 2015, however advised Tema that the ‘supplemental brief’ was filed out of time as the time limit to designate a Respondent was the same time limit to file a Statement of Appeal. Accordingly, when Tema filed their ‘supplemental brief’, the time limit to designate Dreams as a Respondent had already elapsed in accordance with Articles R48 and R49 of the CAS Code. Therefore, Dreams would not be considered as a Respondent in this matter. Tema’s request to include FIFA as an ‘interested party defendant’ was also rejected as not only were FIFA not listed as a Respondent in the Statement of Appeal filed on 30 November 2015, but the concept of an ‘interested party defendant’ did not exist under the CAS Code. Finally, the GFA was invited to file its position regarding Tema’s request for provisional measures by 16 December 2015.

32. On 16 December 2015, the GFA provided its response objecting to Tema’s request for provisional measures. The GFA submitted that Tema failed to credibly show that there was a realistic and imminent threat of, or actual, injury causing irreparable harm unless provisional measures were granted and therefore requested the CAS to dismiss the request.

33. On 18 December 2015, the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division rendered an award on preliminary measures, ruling that:

“1. The request for a stay filed by Tema Youth FC on 30 November 2015, in the matter CAS 2015/A/4328 Tema Youth Football Club vs Ghana Football Association is rejected. 2. The costs deriving from the present order will be determined in the final award or in any other final disposition of this arbitration”.

34. On 21 December 2015, in accordance with Article R53 of the CAS Code, the GFA wrote to the CAS Court Office nominating Mr Bernhard Welten, Attorney-at-Law, Bern, Switzerland as an arbitrator.

35. On 31 December 2015, in accordance with Article R55 of the CAS Code, the GFA filed its Answer and requested the following relief:

“To sum, it is our strongest contention and prayer to that in the light of our arguments and supporting regulations the GFA urge CAS to dismiss the appeal for lack of merit and/or lack of jurisdiction”.

36. On 4 January 2016, the CAS Court Office wrote to the Parties inviting them to inform the CAS Court Office whether they preferred a hearing to be held in this matter or whether they wished for the Panel to issue an award based solely on the Parties’ written submissions.

37. On 5 January 2016, following receipt of the GFA’s Answer, Tema filed a further written submission regarding CAS jurisdiction arguing, in summary, that the CAS did have jurisdiction to hear this dispute.

38. On 8 January 2016, the CAS Court office acknowledged Tema’s submissions regarding CAS jurisdiction and advised the Parties that it was for the Panel, once constituted, to decide on CAS jurisdiction and that the Parties were not authorised to provide any further submissions unless the Parties mutually agreed to it, or were requested to do so by the Panel.

39. On 11 January 2016, the GFA wrote to the CAS Court Office stating that they would prefer the Panel to issue an award based solely on the Parties’ written submissions. On the same day, Tema wrote to the CAS Court Office stating that it wished for a hearing to be held in this matter, however it wished to be heard at this hearing via telephone.

40. On 1 February 2016, Tema wrote to the CAS Court Office with a ‘request for an order to produce documentary evidence’, requesting the Panel to order the GFA to produce evidence of, inter alia, biographical data evidence of the players involved in this dispute and copies of match reports.

41. On 3 February 2016, pursuant to Article R54 of the CAS Code and on behalf of the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that the Panel appointed to this case was constituted as follows:

– President: Mr Mark A. Hovell, Solicitor in Manchester, United Kingdom. – Arbitrators: Dr Marco Balmelli, Attorney-at-Law in Basel, Switzerland. Mr Bernhard Welten, Attorney-at-Law in Bern, Switzerland.

42. On 12 February 2016, given the disagreement between the Parties regarding the need for a hearing, the CAS Court Office wrote to the Parties on behalf of the Panel requesting the Parties to file a second round of written submissions by 19 February 2016, limited to the following issues:

“- Provide a PDF copy of the GFA regulations and statutes.

• Guide the panel how one club can complain to the GFA about another fielding an ineligible player, in accordance with the GFA regulations and statutes.

• How the GFA then disciplines that club and the position of the complainant in those proceedings.

• How either club can appeal?

• Whether either club can seek a review of any appealed decision.

• What the conditions for such a review are”.

43. On 13 February 2016, Tema submitted its second round of written submissions.

44. On 15 February 2016, the GFA wrote to the CAS Court Office requesting that a hearing is now held in this matter instead of its earlier preference that the Panel render an award based solely on the Parties’ written submissions.

45. On 23 February 2016, the CAS Court Office wrote to the Parties granting an ultimate deadline of 29 February 2016 for the GFA to file its second round of written submissions.

46. On 29 February 2016, the GFA submitted its second round of written submissions.

47. On 17 March 2016, the CAS Court office informed the Parties that the Panel had decided to hold a hearing in this matter and requested the Parties to confirm their availability.

48. On 23 March 2016, Tema wrote to the CAS Court Office reiterating their request to be heard via telephone at the hearing.

49. On 7 April 2016, Tema filed a signed Order of Procedure with the CAS Court Office.

50. On 14 April 2016, the GFA filed a signed Order of Procedure with the CAS Court Office and requested to be heard at the hearing via Skype.

IV. THE HEARING

51. On 31 March 2016, the CAS Court Office wrote to the Parties confirming that a hearing would take place on 28 April 2016.

52. A hearing was held on 28 April 2016 at the CAS premises in Lausanne, Switzerland. The Parties did not raise any objection as to the composition of the Panel. The Panel were all present and was assisted by Mr Antonio de Quesada, CAS Counsel. The following persons attended the hearing:

i. Tema: Mr E. Selasi Adika, external counsel; Mr Wilfred Kweku Osei, President and Owner; Mr Francis Adu Essah and Mr Ahmed Gambo, witnesses. ii. The GFA: Mr Kweku Eyiah, Legal Counsel and Mr Isaac Addo, Acting General Secretary.

53. All the Party representatives, counsels and the witnesses participated in the hearing via Skype. The Party representatives and the witnesses were invited by the President of the Panel to tell the truth subject to the sanctions of perjury. The Parties and the Panel had the opportunity to examine and cross-examine the Party representatives and the witnesses. The Parties then were given the opportunity to present their cases, to make their submissions and arguments and to answer questions posed by the Panel. The hearing was then closed and the Panel reserved its detailed decision to this written Award.

54. Upon closing the hearing, the Parties expressly stated that they had no objections in relation to their respective rights to be heard and that they had been treated equally in these arbitration proceedings. The Panel has carefully taken into account in its subsequent deliberation all the evidence and the arguments presented by the Parties, both in their written submissions and at the hearing, even if they have not been summarised in the present Award.

V. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

55. The following summary of the Parties’ positions is illustrative only and does not necessarily comprise each and every contention put forward by the Parties. The Panel however, has carefully considered all the submissions made by the Parties, even if no explicit reference is made in what immediately follows.

A. Tema’s Submissions

In summary, Tema submitted the following in support of its Appeal:

56. Tema submitted that both the GFA DC and the GFA AC had erred by allowing the outcome of the Match to stand. There were clear precedents such as BA United FC v. Aduana Stars FC, BA United FC v. Berlin BC, BA United FC v. Bechem United FC and King Solomon FC v. Soccer Learners

FC that demonstrated that the GFA sanctioned some of its clubs that played matches with ineligible or unqualified players by deducting points from those clubs.

57. Articles 26 and 29 of the GFA’s Regulations state as follows:

“Article 26: Registration – General Guidelines 1. (a) The National Secretariat shall keep registers and data bases in which the names and birth dates and other particulars of all players for each club shall be recorded. (b) A player must be registered with a club as either a Professional or an Amateur in accordance with the provision of Article 2 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. Only registered players are eligible to participate in organised football. By the act of registering, a player agrees to abide by the Statutes and Regulations of FIFA, CAF and the GFA. (c) All clubs shall ensure that their total number of registered players does not exceed a number to be determined by the GFA in consultation with the clubs from time to time. (d) Each Regional Association shall determine the number of players to be registered by the clubs for its competitions. (e) In registering players, full names (Surnames and Other names) shall be given. Incomplete or nicknames shall not be accepted. After registration the association shall be notified of any changes, and in any event, not later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the change.

2. (a) Each club shall be given a software by the IT Department of the GFA to generate electronic registration form for each player for the Premier, Division One, Division Two League Clubs, Women League Clubs and Juvenile League Clubs. The form shall bear the signatures of the player, club official, the Medical Officer who examined the player, and shall be affirmed with passport size photograph of the player (not more than six month old). (b) Clubs registering players shall pay processing fees as determined by the GFA. (c) The application for registration of a Professional must be submitted together with a copy of the player’s contract. It shall be at the discretion of the relevant decision-making body to take account of any contractual amendments or additional agreements that have not been duly submitted to it.

3. (a) If a player who has not been registered with the Association appears for a club in any official match, that player will be considered as having played illegitimately. Without prejudice to any measure required to rectify the sporting consequences of such an appearance, sanctions may also be imposed on the player and / or the club. The right to impose such sanctions lies in principle with the Association or the organizer of the competition concerned. (b) A player shall only be registered for one club at a time. (c) The Ghana Football Association is obliged to provide the club for which the player is registered with a player passport containing the relevant details of the player. The player passport shall indicate the club (s) for which the player has been registered since the season of his 12th birthday. If a birthday falls between seasons, the player shall be listed in the player passport for the club for which he was registered in the season following his birthday.

(d) Players may be registered with a maximum of three (3) clubs during one season. During this period, the player is only eligible to play official matches for two clubs. As an exception to this rule, a player moving between two clubs belonging to associations with overlapping seasons (i.e. Start of the season in summer/autumn as opposed to winter/spring) may be eligible to play in official matches for a third club during the relevant season, provided he has fully complied with his contractual obligations towards his previous clubs. Equally, the provisions relating to the registration periods (Article 6 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players) as well as to the minimum length of a contract (Article 18, paragraph 2, of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players) must be respected. (e) A club shall be deemed to be the bona fide holder of the registration of a player only upon receipt of his registration card duly issued by the Ghana Football Association. (f) Players may only be registered subject to the exception provided for in Article 6 paragraph 1 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (Article 28 (1) of the GFA General Regulations) if an application from the club is validly submitted during a registration period. (g) The provision concerning Registration Periods do not apply to competitions in which only Amateurs participate. For such competition (s), the GFA shall specify the periods when players may be registered, provided that due consideration is given to the sporting integrity of the relevant competition.

4. Under all circumstances due consideration must be given to the sporting integrity of the competition. In particular a player may not play official matches for more than two clubs competing in the same national championship or cup during the same season, subject to stricter individual competition regulations of member associations.

Article 29: Unqualified Player 1. An unqualified player is: (a) Any player not registered at an association who appears for a club in any official match. Without prejudice to any measure required to rectify the sporting consequences of such an appearance, sanctions may also be imposed on the player and/or the Club. The right to impose such sanctions lies in principle with the association or the organizer of the competition concerned. (b) A player suspended by the GFA from participating in football competitions indefinitely or for a specific period. (c) A player banned from participating in competitions organised by WAFU, CAF and FIFA. (d) A player who has registered for more than one club or with any club registered with another National Association. (e) A player who has received a caution in three separate official matches of the FA (i.e. the League and the FA Cup Competitions). (f) A player who has received a direct red card in a match. (g) A player who has received two cautions in the same match.

2. (a) An unqualified player shall not take part in any competition organised by the Association.

(b) For the avoidance of doubt, a player shall not be deemed to have been fielded in a match unless he actually played in the match. (c) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision of this Article, the Association shall in all cases locate and punish the guilty party/parties. In the event of the player being the sole guilty party, the results of the match which he played shall stand. (d) A player guilty of double or multiple registrations shall be suspended from participating in matches and competitions organised by the GFA for a period of one (1) year”.

58. In the matter at hand, Dreams fielded two (2) unqualified players in the Match. The first was

D. He had been signed from Amidaus on 15 October 2014, yet some 3 months later, he was

registered in the name of C., with a date of birth exactly 2 years younger, as if he had come from a third division club.

59. The second player was O., who was registered as J.

60. At the hearing, in response to the questions from the Panel, Tema explained that some players in Ghana were registered as different people with younger ages. This was done mainly to help the player develop. The hope is for players to be transferred abroad, but foreign clubs prefer younger, established players, rather than old ones. Additionally, changing a player’s identity can help clubs avoid paying training compensation and/or solidarity contributions to former clubs. If there are sell on clauses (as with D.) then it may help avoid these too if a player is transferred under a different name.

61. Tema alleged that only clubs can register players, so Dreams must have registered D. as C., with his younger age and also O. as J. Further, Dreams decided to field these two players in the Match and should be disciplined for its actions.

62. The owner of Tema (Mr Osei) gave evidence at the hearing that from his position with the National U17 set up and from having seen the Players play against Tema in the past (indeed D. had scored against Tema), he was able to identify D. as C. and O. as J. during the Match. Tema believed that he would get his opportunity to deliver this evidence at least to the GFA AC, when he was invited to attend its hearing. However, he was “invited and then gagged” as he was not allowed to speak at that hearing.

63. Tema also submitted that whilst there was a burden of proof upon it, it completed the standard petition for the GFA and then wrote to it on 6 August 2015 asking it to conduct its own search of its own records, so as to establish what Tema was alleging, i.e. that these Players had been registered with different names and ages and as such those registrations should be treated as null and void and Dreams should be disciplined for fielding those Players in the Match.

64. The details it provided were sufficient for the GFA to now extract the evidence from its own systems. It had satisfied any burden of proof. However, both the GFA DC and the GFA AC disagreed and determined to take no action against Dreams, rather starting an action against D./C. which ultimately resulted in him being banned for a year, when he could not personally change his registration details. This could only be done by his club, by Dreams.

65. Tema could not access the GFA’s systems to extract the necessary proof, hence why it wrote to the GFA to ask it to carry out this task.

66. In summary, the GFA’s stance has resulted in a miscarriage of justice against the Players and Tema.

B. The GFA’s Submissions

In summary, the GFA submitted the following in support of its defence:

67. The GFA submitted that it merely followed its regulations. It received the protest or petition from Tema, but according to Article 34 of the GFA Regulations, the burden of proof was upon Tema to show that the Players were unqualified.

68. Further, the GFA, having heard Mr Osei at the hearing queried why he had not provided the evidence he possessed, i.e. that he knew the players C. as D. and J. as O. from having worked with them as U17 players and/or having seen them at other clubs playing against Tema. The standard petition form asked for all evidence to be provided. Mr Osei should have provided it, and not doing so was a mistake, but a mistake of his own making.

69. The GFA submitted that the process Tema had to follow was clearly set out in the GFA Regulations and that the precedents Tema had referred to all pre-dated these Regulations, so were not on “all fours” with the matter at hand.

70. Tema could have produced the evidence of Mr Osei before the GFA AC too, but didn’t. When it applied for a review, no new evidence was adduced either, as such the GFA AC were correct in refusing any review.

71. Finally, the GFA noted that D./C. was ultimately banned, but submitted that at the time of the Match, he was registered and therefore a “qualified player”.