Skip to main content
International Arbitration Forum

Ittihad Club of Saudi Arabia v. Anice Badri

Case summary

At a glance

Parties
Ittihad FC (Saudi Arabia) v. Anice Badri (French and Tunisian professional footballer)
Case no.
CAS 2021/A/8139
Forum and rules
Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal procedure (CAS Code, 2020 edition), against a decision of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber
Treaty
None. The case was decided under the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2020 edition), with Swiss law applying subsidiarily.
Panel
Fabio Iudica (Sole Arbitrator)
Sector
Professional football; employment contract
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (26 September 2022). The FIFA DRC decision of 20 May 2021 was confirmed.
Amount
DRC award confirmed: USD 525,618 in outstanding pay plus 5% interest from 22 September 2020, and USD 3,866,662 in compensation plus 5% interest from 20 May 2021. The Club's own claim for USD 4,011,000 was rejected.

The dispute

On 14 January 2020 Ittihad FC signed the player Anice Badri from Espérance Sportive de Tunis on a contract running to 30 June 2022, with a monthly salary of up to USD 200,000. The Club was late with his salary from February 2020. Citing COVID-19 and a Saudi Pro League directive, it cut his salary for March to June 2020 by 25–50%. It also deducted 30% of his June 2020 salary as discipline for missing training on 27 and 28 June 2020. The Player sent a second default notice on 4 September 2020 claiming USD 777,756 and terminated the contract on 22 September 2020 under Article 14bis of the FIFA RSTP. The Club argued that the salary cuts and the fines were lawful, that it had issued the payment order within the deadline, that the Player had waived his claims in a "Return Report", and that any compensation should be reduced under rebus sic stantibus.

Key holdings

  1. The COVID-19 salary cuts were unjustified. The Club did not show that it tried to reach a collective agreement or negotiated with the Player in good faith. It did not show that the Saudi Pro League directive complied with national employment law, and it did not prove its financial losses. The cuts therefore did not meet the FIFA COVID-19 guidelines. ¶¶ 117–118
  2. The disciplinary deduction from the June 2020 salary was arbitrary. The Player was sanctioned without prior notice or a chance to respond. The Club did not show that the decision was notified to the SAFF committee. The 15% fine also exceeded the 10% cap in the contract. ¶¶ 119–120
  3. USD 525,618 was outstanding at termination, more than two monthly salaries. The late payments were partial and were made on 23 September 2020, after the 19 September deadline and after the termination letter. The Club's credit transfer form dated 19 September 2020 did not prove that the bank had been instructed in time. The Player therefore had just cause under Article 14bis of the FIFA RSTP. ¶¶ 121–124
  4. The Return Report only recorded that the Player had returned the car and the housing keys, and it concerned only his obligations towards the Club. It was not a waiver of his financial claims. ¶ 126
  5. The DRC's compensation of USD 3,866,662 under Article 17 of the FIFA RSTP was justified. Rebus sic stantibus did not apply because the Club gave no evidence that the pandemic had seriously disrupted the contractual balance. ¶¶ 125, 127

Procedural history

  1. 14 January 2020The transfer and the employment contract were signed. The contract ran until 30 June 2022.
  2. 4 September 2020The Player sent a second default notice claiming USD 777,756, with a 15-day deadline.
  3. 22 September 2020The Player terminated the contract for just cause.
  4. 8 and 13 October 2020The Club and the Player each filed claims with the FIFA DRC. The claims were consolidated.
  5. 20 May 2021The FIFA DRC partially accepted the Player's claim and rejected the Club's claim. The grounds were notified on 16 June 2021.
  6. 7 July 2021The Club filed its Statement of Appeal with CAS.
  7. 14 January 2022Hearing held by videoconference.
  8. 26 September 2022Award: appeal dismissed and DRC decision confirmed.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by
  • Fabio Iudica Sole arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the institution
For the claimant
Jan Kleiner · Jonáš Gürtler
For the respondent
Adam Taylor · Anton Sotir · Hortense Douard · Léo Zimero

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

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

Case ID
CAS 2021/A/8139
Claimant
Ittihad Club of Saudi Arabia
Respondent
Anice Badri
Documents

Procedure: Appeal
Sport: Football
Matter: Contractual litigations (except transfer)
Outcome: Dismissed
Panel: Fabio Iudica
Source: Court of Arbitration for Sport case database.