The case involves a dispute between professional football player Youcef Sekour and his former club, Ittihad Riadi de Tanger, over unpaid contractual bonuses, which was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The dispute centered on the classification and payment of a bonus referred to as either a "signing bonus" or a "performance bonus" under the player's contract, signed in January 2016. The contract included a monthly salary, match bonuses, a signing bonus for the 2015-2016 season, and an "engagement bonus" for the 2016-2017 season. While the signing bonus was paid, the club only partially paid the engagement bonus, leading Sekour to file a complaint with the Royal Moroccan Football Federation's (FRMF) National Dispute Resolution Chamber (CNRL). The CNRL ruled in favor of the player but classified the unpaid bonus as a performance bonus based on his participation in matches, rather than the agreed engagement bonus. The player appealed to the FRMF's Central Appeals Commission (CCA), which upheld the CNRL's decision, arguing that the player had initially labeled the bonus as a performance bonus in his complaint.
The CAS was tasked with determining whether the engagement bonus should be classified as a signing bonus or a performance bonus under the applicable regulations. The CAS emphasized its authority to review the case de novo, meaning it could independently re-examine the facts and legal issues. It noted that under Article R58 of the CAS Code, the applicable regulations take precedence over any contractual agreements between the parties. The FRMF's regulations recognized only two types of bonuses beyond salary and match fees: a signing bonus (payable only for the first season and non-cumulative with a performance bonus) and a performance bonus. Since the engagement bonus was agreed upon for the second season, the CAS concluded it could not be classified as a signing bonus and must instead be treated as a performance bonus.
The player argued that the engagement bonus was a fixed amount, not contingent on performance, and pointed to the payment schedule, which split the bonus into two equal installments during the season. The club, however, maintained that the bonus was performance-based, as per FRMF regulations, and payable only at the end of the season. The CAS examined the contractual terms and the parties' intentions, noting that the club had already paid 200,000 MAD and issued a check for 400,000 MAD, which the player claimed was uncashed due to the club's insolvency. The CAS ruled that the parties had intentionally departed from the regulatory framework by agreeing to a fixed, non-performance-dependent bonus. Consequently, the CAS upheld the player's appeal, annulling the CCA's decision regarding the classification and amount of the disputed bonus. The club was ordered to pay the remaining 700,000 MAD to the player.
The CAS did not address potential interest on the unpaid amount, as the player had not requested it, and the arbitrator's authority was limited to the parties' submissions. The ruling underscores the primacy of sports regulations over contractual terms and the CAS's broad authority to re-examine disputes comprehensively. The case highlights the importance of precise contractual drafting and adherence to federation regulations in sports contracts, as well as the contractual freedom of parties to agree on terms outside standard regulations, provided such agreements are clearly documented. The final decision was issued on November 15, 2018, resolving the matter based on the evidence and arguments presented.