The case involves a dispute between Shabab Al Ahli Dubai Club and Shanghai SIPG Football Club over a decision by FIFA's Players’ Status Committee (PSC) requiring Shabab Al Ahli Dubai Club to pay €600,000 plus interest to Shanghai SIPG for a loan transfer agreement involving a player. The agreement, dated 31 August 2016, stipulated that Al Ahli Football Club Dubai would pay €1,250,000 in two installments for the temporary transfer of the player. The first installment of €600,000 was due by 1 November 2016, but Al Ahli Football Club Dubai failed to pay, prompting Shanghai SIPG to file a complaint with FIFA. The PSC ruled in favor of Shanghai SIPG, ordering payment from Al Ahli Football Club Dubai.
Shabab Al Ahli Dubai Club argued it was not the same entity as Al Ahli Football Club Dubai and thus not liable for the debt. It claimed to be the successor to Al Shabab Al Arabi Dubai FC, not Al Ahli Football Club Dubai, and asserted that the PSC decision violated principles of natural justice, as it was not given a fair hearing. Shanghai SIPG countered that Shabab Al Ahli Dubai Club was the sporting successor of Al Ahli Football Club Dubai, citing a merger between the two clubs in May 2017. The case raised key legal questions about club identity and whether a successor club could inherit financial obligations from a predecessor.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) examined the evidence, including player rosters, coaching staff continuity, and licensing details, to determine sporting succession. The Sole Arbitrator found that Shabab Al Ahli Dubai Club, formed after the merger, inherited obligations from Al Ahli Football Club Dubai. The decision was based on factors such as the retention of players, coaching staff, and home stadium, as well as the new club's name incorporating elements from the merged entities. The Sole Arbitrator referenced prior CAS and FIFA decisions establishing that a club’s identity transcends its legal entities, emphasizing continuity in name, history, and achievements.
The Appellant also claimed a denial of natural justice, arguing it was unaware of the PSC proceedings until the decision was issued. While the Respondent did not contest this claim, the Sole Arbitrator noted that CAS could review the case comprehensively, curing any procedural defects. The Appellant’s primary defense—the absence of sporting succession—was rejected on the merits.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed the appeal, upholding the PSC’s decision that Shabab Al Ahli Dubai Club is liable for the payment. The ruling confirms that the merged entity is responsible for the financial obligations of its predecessor, Al Ahli Football Club Dubai, highlighting the complexities of club identity and succession in football. The case underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the legal frameworks governing such disputes.