The case revolves around a legal dispute between professional football player Anouar Hadouir and Club Moghreb Athletic Tétouan de Football (CMATF), along with the Royal Moroccan Football Federation (FRMF), adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The conflict stemmed from the termination of Hadouir's employment contract and unpaid contractual obligations. Hadouir signed a two-year agreement with CMATF in June 2014, which included a monthly salary, housing allowance, match fees, and sign-on bonuses. However, CMATF failed to meet its payment obligations, leading Hadouir to demand outstanding payments in 2015 and later initiating proceedings before the FRMF’s dispute resolution body.
Hadouir claimed unpaid wages, bonuses, and other benefits totaling 1,248,680 MAD. CMATF acknowledged partial debt but contested the full amount, arguing some bonuses were performance-based and Hadouir had not met the required standards. The FRMF’s initial ruling favored Hadouir, ordering CMATF to pay 1,132,180 MAD, but this was later reduced to 256,000 MAD by the FRMF’s appeals body. Hadouir then appealed to CAS, seeking additional compensation, including a disputed 2015-2016 season bonus.
The CAS proceedings involved procedural disputes, such as the language of arbitration and the FRMF’s role as a respondent. The sole arbitrator, Jalal El Ahdab, ruled that English would be the procedural language and addressed the substantive issues. The core dispute centered on whether the 2015-2016 bonus was a signing bonus (as Hadouir claimed) or a performance fee (as CMATF argued). The arbitrator rejected CMATF’s performance fee argument, noting the contractual language clearly designated it as a signing bonus, independent of performance. The arbitrator also upheld the FRMF’s reduced award of 256,000 MAD, citing Hadouir’s lack of evidence to justify further compensation.
Ultimately, the CAS partially upheld Hadouir’s appeal, awarding him the 880,000 MAD bonus for the 2015-2016 season plus interest, while confirming the FRMF’s 256,000 MAD award for other claims. The decision emphasized contractual stability, the enforceability of agreed terms, and the burden of proof in disputes. It highlighted the importance of clear contractual language and adherence to regulatory frameworks in resolving sports-related employment conflicts. The ruling reinforced legal protections for players and the obligation of clubs to honor financial commitments unless legally justified otherwise.