The case involves a contractual dispute between Nashat Akram, a retired Iraqi professional football player, and Dalian Aerbin Football Club, a Chinese club affiliated with FIFA. The dispute centered on the termination of Akram's employment contract and an associated image rights agreement, leading to arbitration before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Akram claimed unpaid salaries and fees, while Aerbin accused him of breaching the contract. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) initially ruled against Akram, ordering him to pay compensation, but the case was appealed to CAS, which rendered its final award on 3 February 2016.
The core issue was whether Akram had just cause to terminate his contract due to unpaid wages. He signed two agreements with Aerbin: an Employment Contract and an Image Rights Agreement, the latter involving a third party, Aerbin HK, for tax purposes. CAS determined the contracts were linked, bringing the dispute under FIFA's jurisdiction. Akram argued that unpaid salaries and a delayed signing-on fee justified his termination, but the panel found the payment delays (33 and 3 days for March and April salaries) did not meet the contractual threshold for just cause. The signing-on fee, overdue by over 90 days, was deemed insufficient to warrant termination as the notice was premature.
CAS upheld the FIFA DRC's finding that Akram terminated without just cause but adjusted the compensation. The DRC had set it at USD 690,000, based on the average of Akram's remaining contract value and his new salary with Al Shorta. CAS offset this by the USD 560,000 Akram was owed for unpaid fees, reducing the compensation to USD 130,000 plus interest. The panel emphasized contractual stability under FIFA regulations and Swiss law, rejecting Akram's claims for additional damages and sporting sanctions against Aerbin.
The ruling clarified FIFA's jurisdiction over disputes involving third-party agreements when linked to employment relationships. It also highlighted the high bar for proving just cause for termination and the importance of timely payments in football contracts. The case underscores the complexities of contractual disputes in professional sports, particularly when financial structuring involves multiple agreements. The final decision balanced the parties' obligations, ensuring fairness while upholding the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept).