The case involves a dispute between Alain Serge Ouombleon Guedou, a French football coach, and Al Nassr Saudi Club of Riyadh, concerning unpaid salaries and contractual benefits. The coach had two consecutive employment contracts with the club, the second of which included a dispute resolution clause requiring disputes to be submitted to the Saudi Arabian Football Federation (SAFF). After the club allegedly failed to pay several salaries and benefits, the coach terminated the contract and sought compensation through SAFF. SAFF issued a communication ordering the club to pay a specified amount and facilitate the coach’s exit from Saudi Arabia, but the club did not comply. The coach then appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that SAFF’s communication constituted a binding decision. The sole arbitrator, Georg von Segesser, ruled that CAS had jurisdiction under FIFA Statutes and the CAS Code but found that SAFF’s communication did not qualify as a formal decision under Saudi Arabian football regulations and thus could not be considered res judicata. The arbitrator emphasized that CAS should not act as a first-instance body in appeal proceedings, as this would violate due process principles. Instead, the case was remanded to FIFA to determine jurisdiction and issue a decision on the merits.
The coach sought compensation for unpaid salaries, plane tickets, and damages for moral and career harm, totaling $24,185.50 for unpaid wages and $300,000 for damages. The club argued that CAS lacked jurisdiction, as the dispute should be resolved by SAFF, and contested the coach’s termination of the contract, claiming unpaid wages were minimal and no written warning was issued. The club also sought reimbursement for alleged duplicate payments made by SAFF. The CAS proceedings involved disputes over jurisdiction, language, and procedural matters, including the club’s objection to CAS jurisdiction based on SAFF statutes. A hearing took place in December 2014, with both parties submitting documents and arguments. The coach maintained that CAS had jurisdiction under FIFA statutes and that fair proceedings were not guaranteed at the national level in Saudi Arabia.
The arbitrator ruled that the SAFF’s communication was not a formal decision and annulled the FIFA Single Judge’s ruling, which had deemed the coach’s claims inadmissible. The case was referred back to the FIFA Single Judge to determine jurisdiction and issue a proper decision on the merits. The arbitrator highlighted the procedural complexities and the importance of adhering to formal decision-making processes in sports arbitration. The final decision underscored the limitations of CAS’s role when objections to merits review are raised and the need for due process in resolving disputes. The CAS upheld the appeal, set aside the earlier decision, and dismissed all other motions or requests for relief. The case illustrates the interplay between national and international football governing bodies and the challenges of navigating sports arbitration procedures.