The case involves a legal dispute between Al Hilal Saudi Club and professional footballer Youssef El Arabi over unpaid contractual amounts following the termination of their employment agreement. The Club and the Player entered into a contract on 13 July 2011, valid until 16 July 2015, which included monthly payments and allowances. On 10 July 2012, they agreed to terminate the contract early, signing a Release Agreement where the Club committed to paying the Player EUR 2,497,500 in instalments. However, the Club failed to make any payments, prompting the Player to issue a formal notice on 30 October 2014 and subsequently file a claim with FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) on 31 October 2014, seeking the agreed amount plus interest and damages. The Club contested only the first instalment, arguing it was time-barred and claiming non-payment was due to the Player not providing bank details. Despite a Settlement Agreement on 20 March 2015, where the Club acknowledged the debt and agreed to a revised payment schedule, it again failed to pay. The DRC ruled in favor of the Player on 13 August 2015, ordering the Club to pay the outstanding amount within 30 days.
The Club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which addressed three key issues. First, it ruled the Club’s late counterclaim inadmissible, as no right to counterclaim existed under the applicable rules. Second, it clarified that time limits for filing claims with FIFA exclude the day the deadline is set, with the deadline expiring at midnight on the final day. Third, the CAS dismissed the Club’s argument about lacking the Player’s bank details, noting the Club had ample opportunity to request this information during the Player’s employment. The CAS upheld the DRC’s decision, reinforcing the Club’s obligation to fulfill its contractual commitments.
The Sole Arbitrator further ruled that the Player’s claim was timely, as the filing deadline extended to 3 November 2014 due to non-working days in Switzerland. The Club’s arguments about non-working days in Saudi Arabia and the lack of a Power of Attorney were deemed irrelevant. The Arbitrator also dismissed the Club’s claim about missing bank details, emphasizing the Club’s failure to proactively request them. The FIFA DRC had awarded the Player EUR 2,497,500 plus 5% annual interest, which the Club contested only for the initial EUR 500,000. The Arbitrator upheld the award, finding no grounds to overturn it, and dismissed the Club’s appeal entirely.
The case underscores the importance of adhering to contractual obligations in football employment disputes and highlights procedural rules governing FIFA and CAS proceedings. The Club’s repeated failure to meet payment terms, despite multiple agreements, resulted in a binding decision favoring the Player. The ruling clarifies procedural aspects, such as the inadmissibility of late counterclaims and the correct calculation of filing deadlines. Ultimately, the CAS affirmed that clubs must proactively ensure payment mechanisms are in place, rejecting excuses for non-compliance. The final decision dismissed the Club’s appeal and upheld the original FIFA ruling, with all other claims rejected.