The case revolves around a dispute between Emirates Football Club Company L.L.C. (Emirates FC) and UAE Ajman Cultural and Sports Club (Ajman) concerning training compensation for the player Abdullah Sa’eed Tawash. The player began his career with Ajman at age twelve, signed his first professional contract with them in 2008, and later transferred to Emirates FC in 2010. The core issue was whether Emirates FC owed Ajman training compensation for the player’s development. The Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) of the United Arab Emirates Football Association (UAE FA) initially ruled in favor of Emirates FC, stating Ajman had no right to claim compensation. However, the UAE FA Appeals Committee overturned this decision, ordering Emirates FC to pay AED 455,000 as training compensation, citing the player’s development under Ajman and applicable regulations. Emirates FC sought reconsideration, but the Appeals Committee dismissed the petition, deeming it inadmissible as the decision did not involve punishment. Emirates FC then appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), requesting provisional measures to suspend the decision’s effects.
The CAS panel, led by Sole Arbitrator Patrick Lafranchi, examined the jurisdictional basis for the appeal, noting that FIFA’s Article 67 requires implementation by confederations or members to grant CAS jurisdiction. Emirates FC argued that CAS had jurisdiction under Article 67 of the FIFA Statutes, which allows appeals against decisions by member associations. Ajman, however, contested CAS jurisdiction, asserting that UAE FA regulations did not permit appeals to CAS for local disputes and that the appeal was filed late. The proceedings involved extensive document exchanges, including translations of UAE FA regulations, and the parties eventually agreed to forgo a hearing, opting for a decision based on written submissions.
The arbitrator analyzed whether the arbitration clause in Article 67 of the FIFA Statutes was valid under Swiss law, specifically the Swiss Private International Law Act (PIL). The arbitrator concluded that while the clause was valid under Swiss law, it was not self-executing and required explicit adoption by member associations to confer CAS jurisdiction. Since the UAE FA had not incorporated such a provision into its statutes, CAS lacked jurisdiction over the dispute. The arbitrator also dismissed Emirates FC’s reliance on Article 127 of the UAE FA Statutes, as it only applied to appeals against FIFA decisions, which were not involved in this case.
The final award, issued on 8 May 2014, ruled that CAS had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal, and all other requests for relief were dismissed. The case highlights the complexities of training compensation disputes and the procedural challenges in resolving conflicts within football’s regulatory framework. It underscores the necessity of clear jurisdictional bases, such as valid arbitration clauses or incorporated FIFA provisions, for CAS to intervene in disputes involving member associations. Without such provisions, CAS cannot adjudicate matters arising from decisions by national football bodies. The outcome emphasizes the importance of aligning national regulations with international frameworks to ensure consistent dispute resolution in sports arbitration.