Marsch v. CONCACAF? Procedural Breakdown, Legal Blind Spots, and the Cost of Ignoring the Football Regulatory Profession in North America
Reading Time: 6–7 Minutes | For aspiring Canadian sports lawyers, football regulatory professionals, federation executives, sport management faculty staff, and students of global football governance
📌 Executive Summary
On June 18, 2025, CONCACAF issued a public statement initiating disciplinary proceedings against Jesse Marsch, head coach of the Canadian men’s national team, and the Canadian Soccer Association (CSA). The allegations arose from Canada’s Gold Cup group-stage match against Honduras and involve:
A breach of regulations concerning suspended match officials, and
Offensive language allegedly directed at match officials by Mr. Marsch, who was already serving a suspension.
Despite the seriousness of the charges, the confederation failed to cite the applicable legal provisions, outline procedural steps, or provide clear timelines to resolve the dispute. This omission reflects more than oversight — it reveals a systemic failure to uphold the procedural guarantees codified in both the FIFA Disciplinary Code (2025) and the binding 2025 CONCACAF Gold Cup Regulations.
In view of the above, this opinion examines the matter, objectively, through a legal-regulatory lens, in order to identify procedural shortcomings, and outline the jurisdiction and responsibility of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) as the ultimate appellate authority.
⚠️ A Structural Weakness at Both Ends
Canadian Soccer Association (CSA)
The CSA continues to operate in a climate of institutional instability. In the past five years, it has cycled through four different presidents (Reed, Bontis, Crooks, Augruso) and multiple interim general secretaries, culminating in the 2024 appointment of Kevin Blue — a former golf executive — as General Secretary.
Nevertheless, the federation’s legal and regulatory infrastructure remains critically deficient. The current General Counsel possesses no demonstrable expertise in lex sportiva — the specialized body of international jurisprudence that governs football — and lacks any formal background in football regulatory affairs. For a national association operating on the world stage, where regular engagement with FIFA’s disciplinary, compliance, and governance systems is a baseline requirement, this isn’t merely an internal gap — it’s a strategic liability with external consequences.
That liability was laid bare when the head coach became embroiled in an international disciplinary matter, and the federation’s top legal officer failed to issue even a basic public statement. In global sport, silence isn’t neutrality — it’s negligence. What message does that send about Canada’s preparedness to defend its own interests on football’s legal front lines? Well, you cannot run away from what you fail to understand.
Canada is co-hosting the 2026 FIFA World Cup (though with just 12.5% of the tournament’s 104 matches, whether “co-host” is an accurate term is debatable — I’ll leave you with the statistics to decide). Yet instead of preparing with dedicated legal infrastructure capable of navigating the complex regulatory systems that govern the tournament, our nation remains woefully unprepared. While others are aligning with FIFA’s legal frameworks and dispute resolution standards, Canada continues to operate as if hosting a global sporting event requires little more than media events, stadiums and cringey slogans.
The Football Regulatory Database was created to offer the precise type of legal scrutiny and institutional accountability conveniently missing from the CSA’s operations. Because what’s at stake isn’t just legal exposure — it’s the credibility of Canadian professional football on the world stage.
Procedural Ambiguity at CONCACAF: Governance on Trial
As the competent disciplinary authority, CONCACAF’s June 18 communication fails to meet minimum legal standards:
No reference to the applicable provisions of the Disciplinary Code;
No procedural roadmap;
No stated timelines or submission rights;
No mention of appeal options or internal remedies.
This is procedurally unacceptable because it offers no due process.
According to Article 1.4.3 of the 2025 CONCACAF Gold Cup Regulations, all disciplinary matters must be governed by the CONCACAF Disciplinary Code. That code guarantees:
Article 41: The right to a fair hearing and timely notice of charges.
Article 42: No sanction without the opportunity to respond.
Article 19: Federation responsibility for the conduct of officials.
CONCACAF’s failure to apply these safeguards — their own safeguards — calls into question the integrity of its disciplinary process.
Relevant FIFA Frameworks
The 2025 FIFA Disciplinary Code — the global standard — demands:
Article 40: Fairness, impartiality, and transparency in proceedings.
Article 42: Notice of charges and reasoned decision-making.
Article 43: Right to legal representation.
Article 53: Accountability for actions during suspension.
As a FIFA-recognized confederation, CONCACAF — and in particular its member associations — are bound to these minimum procedural requirements through the international legal principle of pacta sunt servanda. Ignoring them opens the door for legal scrutiny from FIFA.
Broader Implications
This incident reveals deeper institutional fragility. The CSA’s legal weakness and CONCACAF’s procedural vagueness reflect a failure to align with the international legal standards set by FIFA. This extends beyond competition — it implicates governance, credibility, and Canada’s ability to operate as a compliant FIFA stakeholder.
Compounding this is the broader safe sport crisis in Canada. Despite a $16 million federal investment into the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner (OSIC), CSA remains entangled in unresolved issues — including allegations of abuse, misconduct, and governance failures reaching as far back as the Whitecaps sexual assault scandal.
It’s no longer a question of mere oversight. It’s a legal and moral failure — one that signals what happens when organizations ignore their regulatory obligations, fail to invest in legal infrastructure, and treat football law as optional. And unless this changes, Canada will remain a second-tier actor in the global football economy.
📬 For independent insight into football law, governance enforcement, and FIFA-compliant dispute strategy, follow The Football Regulatory Database — powered by Pitchside Sports Consulting.