The case involves a dispute between Al Nassr Saudi Club and professional football player Shavkatjon Mulladjanov over the termination of their employment contract. The parties had signed a contract on 1 July 2012, valid until 30 June 2013, which included a monthly salary and an advance payment. On 25 February 2013, they entered into a termination agreement stipulating that the club would pay the player USD 266,664, covering outstanding salaries and the remaining signing fee, with a deadline of 25 March 2013. The agreement also stated that disputes would be referred to the Saudi Arabian Football Federation (SAFF). When the club failed to make the payments, the player sought assistance from SAFF and later filed a claim with FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) on 14 November 2013, demanding the outstanding amounts plus interest. The FIFA DRC ruled in favor of the player on 24 April 2015, ordering the club to pay USD 308,330 plus 5% annual interest. The club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that no payment was due for February 2013 and contesting FIFA's jurisdiction, as the termination agreement designated SAFF for dispute resolution. The club also claimed procedural violations and requested the reversal of the FIFA DRC decision, reimbursement of costs, and coverage of legal fees by the player.
The CAS panel, led by sole arbitrator Michael Ge rlinger, addressed two key legal issues. First, it confirmed FIFA's jurisdiction over employment-related disputes of an international dimension, noting that the club failed to prove SAFF's arbitration tribunal met fairness and representation requirements. The panel also found that the player's unanswered attempts to resolve the dispute through SAFF justified FIFA's involvement under Swiss constitutional guarantees of access to courts. Second, the panel upheld the FIFA DRC's decision that the termination agreement did not cover the February 2013 salary, which remained payable separately. The CAS dismissed the club's appeal, affirming the FIFA DRC's ruling and ordering the club to fulfill its payment obligations. The decision reinforced FIFA's authority in international football disputes and clarified the enforceability of termination agreements while protecting players' rights to unpaid salaries.
The case highlights the complexities of sports arbitration, including jurisdictional disputes, contractual interpretations, and procedural fairness. The club questioned the authenticity of the termination agreement's signature and argued for a misunderstanding of payment obligations, but the arbitrator found no evidence to support these claims. The termination agreement clearly established separate payment obligations, including a signing fee, outstanding salaries, and the February 2013 salary. The arbitrator ruled that all three payments were obligatory, with no indication to the contrary, and upheld the full amount of USD 308,330 plus interest. The FIFA DRC's decision was confirmed, and all other relief requests were denied. The case underscores the importance of clear contractual terms and the burden of proof in disputes over authenticity and payment obligations. Ultimately, the CAS upheld the principles of procedural fairness and the enforceability of contractual agreements in sports disputes.