The Court Of Arbitration has reversed the life ban imposed on former Super Eagles coach, Samson Siasia by FIFA.
CAS reduced the ban to five years and cancelled the $50,000 fine imposed on him by FIFA.
The world football body had in In August 2019, sanctioned Siasia after considering him guilty of FIFA involvement in the manipulation of matches for betting purposes.
FIFA had claimed its decision arose from an extensive investigation into matches that Wilson Perumal attempted to fix.
Its Ethics Committee said, “Siasia was found guilty of having accepted that he would receive bribes in relation to the manipulation of matches that Perumal attempted to manipulate for betting purposes.”
But Siasia who was not satisfied with the verdict of the world football body, appealed the ban at CAS.
READ ALSO: Customs To Pastors, Others: Do The Right Thing Or We Will Seize Your Private Jets
CAS in its own judgement, said, it “determined the imposition of a life ban to be disproportionate for a first offense which was committed passively and which had not had an adverse or immediate effect on football stakeholders, and that a five-year ban would still achieve the envisaged aim of punishing the infringement committed by Mr Siasia.”
“In 2010, a match fixer tried to involve Mr Siasia as a coach of a club under his strict instructions. With the promise of employment benefits, Mr Siasia would have had to always field several players under the control of the match fixer.
“The negotiations between the match fixer and Mr Siasia in relation to the conditions of employment were conducted by email over a period of two months.
“Eventually, the club did not accept or could not afford Mr. Siasia’s requests and the negotiations ended.
“However, the panel considered in the particular circumstances of this matter that it would be inappropriate and excessive to impose a financial sanction in addition to the five-year ban, since the ban sanction already incorporated a financial punishment in eliminating football as a source of revenue for Mr Siasia.
“And considering that Mr Siasia had not obtained any gain or pecuniary benefit from his unethical behaviour,” CAS Said.
