The case revolves around a contractual dispute between Al Nassr Saudi Club and FC Twente 65 concerning the transfer of a player, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The dispute originated from a transfer agreement signed on 22 August 2015, where Al Nassr agreed to pay FC Twente €1.2 million in two installments, with penalties for late payments. Al Nassr failed to pay the first installment by the agreed deadline, prompting FC Twente to file a claim with FIFA’s Players’ Status Committee (PSC). Al Nassr contested the agreement’s validity, arguing it was improperly signed and that the second installment was erroneously included, while also claiming the penalty clause was excessive. The PSC ruled partially in favor of FC Twente, ordering Al Nassr to pay the outstanding €1.2 million plus a reduced penalty of €250,000, with interest if unpaid.
Al Nassr appealed the PSC’s decision to CAS, where the sole arbitrator, Fabio Iudica, examined procedural aspects such as document production, third-party intervention, and burden of proof under the CAS Code. The arbitrator emphasized that parties must substantiate requests for document production and that third-party participation requires written agreement or binding arbitration clauses. The adversarial nature of CAS proceedings placed the burden of proof on Al Nassr to substantiate its claims, which it failed to do convincingly. Al Nassr argued that only $800,000 of the transfer fee was legitimate, alleging the remaining $400,000 was an agent’s commission and constituted unjust enrichment for FC Twente. However, the arbitrator found no credible evidence to support these claims, noting the Transfer Agreement explicitly stated the fee as €1.2 million.
FC Twente maintained that the agreement was valid and binding, citing Al Nassr’s own correspondence acknowledging the first installment. The club also opposed Al Nassr’s request to involve the player’s agent, Moussa Rahal, in the proceedings, arguing it lacked relevance. The arbitrator rejected Al Nassr’s requests for evidence production and third-party intervention, finding its arguments unsupported and confusing. The arbitrator upheld the PSC’s decision, confirming FC Twente’s entitlement to the full transfer fee and penalties for late payment, as Al Nassr had not paid any portion of the agreed amount. The ruling reinforced the binding nature of contractual obligations and the importance of meeting the burden of proof in legal disputes.
The case highlights the complexities of international sports arbitration, including jurisdictional disputes, procedural rules, and contractual enforcement. The arbitrator’s decision underscored the principle that parties must provide convincing evidence to succeed in arbitration and that properly executed agreements are enforceable. The outcome affirmed the financial penalties and interest due under the original agreement, dismissing Al Nassr’s appeal and upholding FIFA’s decision. The ruling serves as a reminder of the consequences of non-compliance with contractual obligations and the role of CAS as the final arbiter in such disputes.