The case revolves around a legal dispute between Shabab Al Ahli Dubai Club and professional football player Jociel Ferreira da Silva concerning unpaid wages and compensation following the termination of his employment contract. The player initially signed a fixed-term contract with Al Ahli Football Club in 2013, which included monthly salaries and sign-on fees. A termination agreement was signed in 2016, stating that all financial obligations had been fulfilled. However, the player later claimed he was owed additional payments, supported by a bank check and a letter from the club acknowledging the debt. When the check could not be cashed due to the club's frozen account, the parties negotiated a new payment plan, but the club failed to honor it. The player then filed a claim with FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which ruled in his favor, ordering the club to pay the outstanding amount plus interest and penalties.
Shabab Al Ahli Dubai Club, as the legal successor to Al Ahli Football Club, appealed the DRC's decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS panel upheld the DRC's ruling, emphasizing that the club failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the player's claims. The panel noted that the burden of proof required the club to present convincing evidence to dispute the player's claims, which it did not do. The club argued that it was not the legal successor of Al Ahli Football Club and that its right to be heard was violated during the FIFA proceedings. However, the CAS found that the club was aware of the proceedings but chose not to participate, thereby waiving its right to claim a breach of due process. The player provided substantial evidence, including the club's official website, FIFA's Transfer Matching System, and press reports, to demonstrate that Shabab Al Ahli Dubai Club was indeed the legal successor of Al Ahli Football Club.
The CAS panel dismissed the club's arguments as weak and unpersuasive, noting that the club could have submitted internal documents, such as merger contracts, to clarify its position but failed to do so. The panel also rejected the club's claim that the player's refusal to return certain checks made it impossible to comply with the DRC's decision, stating that the decision did not condition the payment on the return of the checks. Ultimately, the CAS upheld the DRC's decision in its entirety, confirming the club's obligation to pay the player the outstanding amount, along with interest and penalties. The ruling reinforced the principle that clubs must fulfill their financial commitments to players and provide concrete evidence when disputing claims. The decision underscores the importance of precise legal arguments and evidentiary support in arbitration proceedings, as well as the role of due process and active participation in legal disputes. The case highlights the complexities of sports law, particularly regarding club mergers, successor liability, and procedural fairness. The CAS's final decision dismissed the club's appeal and confirmed the player's entitlement to the awarded amount.