The case involves a dispute between Al-Hilal Al-Saudi Club and FIFA, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), concerning the timing of a four-month suspension imposed on a player for breaching his contract with his former club, Gaziantepspor. The player had terminated his contract without just cause and subsequently joined Al-Hilal. FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) ruled that the player and Al-Hilal were jointly liable to pay $600,000 in compensation to Gaziantepspor and imposed a four-month playing ban, effective upon notification of the decision. Al-Hilal appealed, arguing the suspension should commence at the start of the next season rather than immediately. The player had initially signed with Gaziantepspor in 2004 but later alleged non-payment of salary, leading to a dispute. FIFA's DRC initially ruled in favor of Gaziantepspor, ordering the player to return, but the player appealed to CAS, which stayed the decision pending review. During this period, the player signed with Al-Hilal. CAS later confirmed the player breached his contract without just cause and referred the matter back to the DRC to determine compensation and sanctions. The DRC's Second Decision imposed the financial penalty and playing ban, but Al-Hilal contested the timing of the suspension, seeking provisional measures to delay its enforcement.
The CAS Panel examined Article 17(3) of FIFA's regulations, which states that sanctions take effect "following season." The Panel concluded that, under a literal interpretation, the suspension should begin at the start of the next season after the breach, regardless of the player's club at that time. However, it noted that in cases of delayed communication of the DRC decision, the sanction takes effect upon notification. The Panel upheld the DRC's decision, emphasizing the clear wording of the regulation. FIFA opposed the appeal, arguing Al-Hilal lacked standing to challenge the sanction since the player had not appealed, implying his acceptance. FIFA also maintained that immediate enforcement was necessary to uphold contractual stability and deter future breaches, citing established DRC jurisprudence and prior CAS awards.
The CAS Panel confirmed its jurisdiction and dismissed FIFA's formal objections, referencing its earlier order on provisional measures. On the merits, the Panel upheld the DRC's decision, aligning with FIFA's stance that the suspension should take effect immediately upon notification to ensure the punitive and deterrent purposes of the sanction. However, it adjusted the commencement date to the start of the next season in Saudi Arabia or any new season in another jurisdiction, whichever came first, deducting the period between the notification of the DRC decision and the stay of execution from the four-month ban. The ruling reinforced the principle of contractual stability in football, emphasizing the importance of timely enforcement of disciplinary measures. The appeal was partially successful in modifying the sanction's start date, with all other relief requests dismissed. The case highlights the importance of precise regulatory language and the role of CAS in resolving disputes over FIFA's regulations.