Zamalek SC v. Ferjani Sassi, Al-Duhail SC

At a glance

Parties

El Zamalek Sporting Club (Egypt) v. Ferjani Sassi (Tunisian player) and Al Duhail SC (Qatar)

Case no.

CAS 2024/A/10445

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal under the CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration against a decision of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber; FIFA regulations (FIFA RSTP, February 2021 edition) apply primarily, Swiss law subsidiarily

Tribunal

Sofoklis Pilavios (Sole Arbitrator)

Sector

Football; player employment contract

Outcome

Appeal partially upheld (10 October 2025). The amounts Zamalek owes the player were reduced. The contract expired on 31 May 2021, so Zamalek's claims for breach and compensation were dismissed.

Amount

FIFA DRC award: EUR 210,425.27 plus 5% interest from 1 June 2020, and EUR 485,822.47 plus 5% interest from 1 June 2021. Amended by CAS to EUR 70,796.01 plus 5% interest from 1 June 2020, and EUR 406,085.33 plus 5% interest from 1 June 2021. Zamalek's claims (EUR 337,447.332 residual value, EUR 573,890 for specificity of sport, EUR 2,200,000 lost transfer fee) were dismissed. Costs rulings are not reproduced in the published award.

The dispute

Zamalek employed the Tunisian player Ferjani Sassi under a three-season contract concluded on 29 July 2018. Article 2 of the contract set gross payments, while Article 5 set net yearly salaries of EUR 1,600,000 for 2018/2019 and EUR 1,400,000 for each of 2019/2020 and 2020/2021. Zamalek deducted income tax, a new 10% Development Tax, half of the EFA registration fee and disciplinary fines, so the player claimed unpaid net salary before the FIFA DRC. Zamalek counterclaimed that the season-long contract ran to the end of the COVID-delayed 2020/2021 season (26 August 2021). On that basis it argued that the player had terminated without just cause by joining Al Duhail, and that Al Duhail had induced the breach. After a remand by CAS, the FIFA DRC awarded the player outstanding remuneration and rejected the counterclaim; Zamalek appealed to CAS.

Key holdings

1. The contract fixed the player's net salary in Article 5. A net payment means net of all deductions, so Zamalek had to pay the taxes, including the increased income tax and the new Development Tax, on top of the net remuneration. Zamalek's expert opinions on Egyptian tax law were of little or no relevance given the express wording of Article 5. ¶¶ 78–81
2. All fines Zamalek itself imposed are null and void and cannot be set off against salary. Its internal regulations had no due-process safeguards, and there was no evidence that the player was heard or properly notified. The two EFA fines for 2019/2020 (EUR 1,063.49 and EUR 5,396.24) are deductible, because neither the player nor the club could avoid paying them. ¶¶ 84–90
3. The FIFA DRC was wrong to deduct the registration fee from the net salary. Because the player did not appeal that point, the non reformatio in peius principle, which also applies in contractual disputes, keeps the deduction of EUR 27,096.78 per season. The request to deduct VAT on the fee was rejected. ¶¶ 79, 96
4. Zamalek bore the burden of proving payment. Arabic 'Swift Remittance Application' forms without translation did not prove payment and were counted only where the player admitted the payments. The player is owed EUR 70,796.01 for 2019/2020 and EUR 406,085.33 for 2020/2021, each with 5% interest. ¶¶ 91–95, 100
5. The player did not tacitly accept the deductions. Zamalek's payments were irregular and did not follow the contractual schedule, so no unambiguous conduct showing acceptance could be inferred. ¶¶ 97–98
6. The contract expired naturally on 31 May 2021, the originally scheduled end of the 2020/2021 EFA season recorded in FIFA TMS and reflected in the payment schedule. Under the FIFA Covid-19 Guidelines, the EFA's extension of the season did not extend the contract, and a club may vary a contract unilaterally only as a last resort under cumulative conditions. Zamalek proved no extension or variation, so there was no termination and its compensation and sanctions claims were dismissed. ¶¶ 105–115

Procedural history

1. 29 July 2018Zamalek and the player conclude a three-season employment contract (2018/2019 to 2020/2021).
2. 15 May 2021The player puts Zamalek in default for unpaid net salary and objects to deductions.
3. 16 July 2021The player files his claim before the FIFA DRC; Zamalek later counterclaims against the player and Al Duhail.
4. 27 July 2021The player signs with Al Duhail until 30 June 2024.
5. 9 December 2021First FIFA DRC decision: the counterclaim is declared inadmissible and the player is awarded outstanding remuneration.
6. 27 March 2023CAS sets aside the first DRC decision, declares the counterclaim admissible and refers the matter back to the FIFA DRC.
7. 29 November 2023FIFA DRC decision (grounds notified 1 March 2024) awards the player EUR 210,425.27 and EUR 485,822.47 with interest and rejects Zamalek's counterclaim.
8. 24 March 2024Zamalek files its Statement of Appeal with CAS.
9. 2 September 2024The Sole Arbitrator is appointed; on 10 June 2025 he decides to rule on the written submissions alone.
10. 10 October 2025Award: appeal partially upheld; the amounts due to the player are reduced and the contract is held to have expired on 31 May 2021.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Sofoklis Pilavios Sole arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the institution

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• football
• FIFA DRC
• FIFA RSTP
• net salary
• tax deductions
• Development Tax
• registration fee
• disciplinary fines
• right to be heard
• non reformatio in peius
• tacit acceptance
• COVID-19
• FIFA Covid-19 Guidelines
• season extension
• contract expiry
• unilateral variation
• inducement to breach
• burden of proof

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