Al-Faisaly Football Club v. Ahmed Achraf Mohamed Feki, Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

At a glance

Parties

Club Al Faisaly (Saudi Arabia) v. Ahmed Achraf Mohamed Feki (player) and FIFA

Case no.

CAS 2023/A/10150

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeals procedure under the CAS Code (2023 edition)

Treaty

FIFA Statutes Art. 58(1); FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (May 2023 edition)

Panel

Marco Balmelli (President), Jordi López Batet, Daniel Cravo Souza

Sector

Football; player employment contract

Outcome

Appeal partially upheld. By majority, the Panel set aside the two-registration-period ban imposed under Art. 17(4) RSTP. Award of 26 February 2025; operative part of 22 May 2024.

Amount

The FIFA DRC had awarded the player SAR 954,540 in outstanding remuneration and SAR 2,886,349 in compensation, plus interest. The club and the player settled this part, which a Partial Consent Award of 26 February 2024 ratified. The costs provisions are redacted in the published award.

The dispute

Club Al Faisaly, a Saudi club, signed an employment contract with the player on 24 October 2020. The award describes him as an Egyptian and Saudi Arabian professional footballer. The player was injured. The club paid his full salary for four months and then cut it, first to 75% and then to 50%. On 19 July 2022, inside the protected period, the club terminated the contract on the ground that the injury had lasted more than a year, relying on Article 37 of the SAFF Regulations. The FIFA DRC ordered the club to pay outstanding salary and compensation for breach without just cause. It also banned the club from registering new players for two registration periods under Article 17(4) RSTP. The money claims were settled, so the club appealed only the ban. It argued that the sanction is not automatic, that it acted in good faith under the SAFF Regulations, and that it is not a repeat offender. FIFA argued that the sanction was justified by aggravating factors: termination because of injury, no prior warning, and unlawful salary cuts.

Key holdings

1. The applicable regulations are the FIFA Statutes and regulations, in particular the RSTP (May 2023 edition), with Swiss law applied in addition. The SAFF Regulations do not apply, because Article 9(2) of the contract chose FIFA regulations and Article 3 contains no choice of law for disputes. ¶¶ 52–53
2. Under Article R57 of the CAS Code, the Panel reviews the case de novo. By majority, it held that it may amend the sanction even if the FIFA body did not act arbitrarily or impose a grossly disproportionate sanction. ¶ 54
3. An injury is not just cause for terminating a contract. The termination during the protected period was therefore a breach of contract, and the prerequisites of Article 17(4) RSTP were met. ¶¶ 58–65
4. Sanctions under Article 17(4) RSTP are not automatic. The words "shall be imposed" give the competent body a power, not a duty. By majority, the Panel held that aggravating circumstances of sufficient severity are needed to justify a sanction. ¶¶ 66–74
5. A club that is not a repeat offender is not automatically exempt from sanctions. The club had no history of repeat offences. ¶¶ 78–79
6. By majority, none of FIFA's factors was aggravating. Breach during the protected period is a prerequisite, not an aggravating factor. Termination for injury was not aggravating, because the club had supported the player's recovery for over a year and the DRC had not sanctioned similar cases; deterring other clubs is not a valid reason. The salary cut was unlawful under the RSTP, but it was not aggravating on its own, since the club paid more than Swiss law would require. Lack of prior warning is already covered by the finding of termination without just cause. ¶¶ 85–95
7. By majority, a sanction was not appropriate. Point 6 of the DRC decision (the registration ban) was set aside; the Panel noted the club had already served half of it. All other prayers for relief were dismissed. ¶¶ 96–100; operative part

Procedural history

1. 19 July 2022The club terminates the player's contract because of his injury.
2. 28 July 2023The player files a claim with the FIFA DRC.
3. 26 October 2023The FIFA DRC decides: compensation and a ban on registering players for two registration periods. The grounds are notified on 30 October 2023.
4. 20 November 2023The club files its Statement of Appeal with CAS.
5. 9 January 2024The Panel is constituted.
6. 26 February 2024Partial Consent Award ratifies the settlement of 17 January 2024 between the club and the player on the money claims.
7. 3 May 2024Order of Procedure issued after a second exchange of written submissions; the case is decided without a hearing.
8. 22 May 2024Operative part of the award: appeal partially upheld and the ban set aside.
9. 26 February 2025Reasoned award issued.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Marco Balmelli President, CAS Panel — appointed by the institution
• Jordi López Batet Co-arbitrator, CAS Panel — appointed by the claimant
• Daniel Cravo Souza Co-arbitrator, CAS Panel — appointed by the respondent

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• Article 17(4) RSTP
• sporting sanctions
• registration ban
• protected period
• termination without just cause
• player injury
• repeat offender
• aggravating factors
• salary reduction
• SAFF Regulations
• FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber
• de novo review
• Article R57 CAS Code
• partial consent award
• Saudi Arabia
• Article 324a Swiss Code of Obligations

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