The case involves a legal dispute between Al Ittihad Club, a Saudi football club, and Raúl Caneda, a Spanish football coach, along with Al Nassr Riyadh, another Saudi football club. The dispute was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) following an appeal by Al Ittihad against a decision by FIFA's Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee. The conflict arose from the termination of an employment contract between Al Ittihad and Caneda. On 1 August 2012, the parties entered into a two-season contract valid until 30 June 2014, but Al Ittihad unilaterally terminated it on 25 February 2013 without just cause. A settlement agreement was signed on 28 March 2013, in which Al Ittihad acknowledged the termination and agreed to pay Caneda USD 1,153,749 in four installments. When Al Ittihad failed to make these payments, Caneda filed a claim with FIFA on 16 September 2013, seeking the full amount plus interest and costs. Despite being notified, Al Ittihad did not participate in the FIFA proceedings, leading to a ruling in favor of Caneda on 26 August 2014.
Al Ittihad appealed to CAS, arguing that the settlement agreement was invalid due to alleged misrepresentation or fraud by Caneda. The CAS panel, comprising Hendrik Willem Kesler, Marc Beaumont, and Luigi Fumagalli, examined the case and emphasized that the burden of proof rested with Al Ittihad. The panel found that Al Ittihad failed to substantiate its claims with sufficient evidence, as it did not demonstrate that any misrepresentation had a determinative effect on the settlement agreement. The panel upheld the FIFA decision, confirming that Al Ittihad was legally bound by the settlement agreement and must fulfill its financial obligations to Caneda. The ruling reinforced the principle that parties alleging fraud or misrepresentation must provide affirmative proof of their claims.
Al Ittihad further alleged that Caneda had breached his contract by acting in bad faith, intentionally provoking his dismissal to seek employment elsewhere while still receiving payment. They claimed he violated Saudi Arabian customs by publicly insulting club members and disrupting team harmony. Caneda and Al Nassr denied these allegations, asserting that the settlement agreement was valid and that Caneda’s employment with Al Nassr began over a year after his contract with Al Ittihad ended, negating any causal link. Al Nassr also denied any wrongdoing, stating it had no involvement in Caneda’s prior contract and that he was a free agent when hired.
The CAS panel confirmed its jurisdiction over the dispute, citing FIFA statutes and the CAS Code, and deemed the appeal admissible as it met procedural requirements. The applicable law was determined to be Swiss law, given the absence of a specific choice by the parties and the domicile of the involved sports bodies. The panel concluded that Al Ittihad did not prove its allegations, and the settlement agreement remained valid. The decision underscored the importance of clear contractual terms and the burden of proof in legal disputes. The panel’s ruling upheld the original decision, dismissing Al Ittihad’s claims for damages and joint liability against Al Nassr.
Ultimately, the CAS ordered Al Ittihad to pay Caneda USD 1,153,749 plus interest at 5% per annum on specified amounts from relevant dates until payment was made. All other claims and requests for relief were dismissed. The case highlights the enforceability of settlement agreements and the necessity for parties to actively participate in legal proceedings to defend their positions. The final decision reinforced the binding nature of contractual obligations in sports employment disputes and the high evidentiary threshold required to challenge them.