The case before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) involved a dispute between Botafogo de Futebol e Regatas and Sharjah FC over the payment of a transfer fee for a player. The central issue was whether Sharjah had fulfilled its payment obligation of USD 323,830 as stipulated in their 2013 transfer agreement. Botafogo claimed the funds were returned to Sharjah due to unresolved banking issues in Brazil, while Sharjah maintained it had successfully transferred the amount and denied receiving any refund. The case highlighted key legal principles, including the discretion to exclude new evidence under Article R57(3) of the CAS Code and the burden of proof, which required each party to substantiate their claims with convincing evidence.
The factual background revealed that Sharjah transferred the fee to Botafogo’s bank, Banco Modal, in July 2013, but the funds were returned in February 2014 due to unresolved documentation issues. Botafogo later asserted it never received the payment and filed a claim with FIFA in 2015. Sharjah countered that the payment had been processed and that Botafogo’s failure to complete necessary banking procedures was its own responsibility. FIFA’s Single Judge initially ruled in Sharjah’s favor in March 2016, stating Botafogo failed to prove the refund reached Sharjah. Botafogo then appealed to CAS, presenting new evidence, including SWIFT messages and confirmations from banks, to demonstrate the refund had been completed.
The CAS panel, composed of three arbitrators, conducted proceedings in Lausanne, Switzerland, and considered written and oral submissions from both parties. Botafogo relied on interbank messages to prove the refund, while Sharjah disputed the validity of these documents, arguing the funds were returned to Al Ansari Exchange, an entity with no legal ties to Sharjah. Sharjah also accused Botafogo of acting in bad faith, alleging the refund was an attempt to evade judicial orders related to Botafogo’s financial liabilities. The Panel examined the evidence, including a transaction reference number matching the refund, and found Botafogo’s documentation credible. It emphasized that Sharjah failed to provide counter-evidence or cooperate fully, notably by not attending the hearing.
Ultimately, the Panel concluded the refund had been completed on 31 March 2014 and ruled in Botafogo’s favor, ordering Sharjah to repay the amount plus 5% annual interest from June 2015, when the dispute was first submitted to FIFA. The earlier FIFA decision was set aside, and Botafogo’s appeal was partially upheld. The case underscored the complexities of international financial transactions in football transfers and the importance of clear evidence in resolving contractual disputes. The ruling reinforced CAS’s role in adjudicating such conflicts and clarified the responsibilities of clubs in fulfilling payment obligations.