The case TAS 2018/A/5881 involves a contractual dispute between professional football player Abdelmalek Mokdad and the Mouloudia Club d'Alger (MCA), along with the Algerian Football Federation (FAF). The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued its ruling on April 9, 2019, addressing jurisdictional and substantive issues. The dispute stemmed from Mokdad's employment contract with MCA, which was extended until 2018. Mokdad alleged unpaid salaries from April 2017 and unfair treatment, including demotion to the reserve team. He filed a claim with the FAF’s National Dispute Resolution Chamber (CNRL), which ruled in his favor, ordering MCA to pay outstanding wages. MCA appealed to the Algerian Tribunal for the Resolution of Sports Disputes (TARLS), which partially overturned the CNRL decision. Mokdad then appealed to CAS, arguing procedural irregularities and misinterpretation of the contract.
The CAS examined its jurisdiction, emphasizing that an arbitration agreement requires mutual intent to exclude state jurisdiction and submit disputes to arbitration. The tribunal noted that CAS jurisdiction cannot be based solely on FIFA statutes unless explicitly incorporated into national federation regulations. Article 70 of the FAF statutes limits appeals to CAS to disputes involving the FAF, not purely between clubs and players. Since Mokdad’s dispute was with MCA, CAS lacked jurisdiction unless the FAF was a party. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the TARLS decision.
Mokdad’s claims included unpaid salaries, compensation for contract termination, and damages for the FAF’s alleged failure to enforce FIFA regulations. The respondents did not submit admissible defenses, leading the tribunal to proceed without an oral hearing. The CAS analyzed the arbitration clause in Mokdad’s contract, which referred disputes to the FAF’s internal mechanisms, not CAS. The tribunal concluded that the FAF statutes did not explicitly provide for appeals to CAS from TARLS decisions in disputes between clubs and players.
The case highlights the importance of clear arbitration agreements and jurisdictional limits in sports disputes. The CAS underscored that FIFA and UEFA statutes alone do not grant CAS jurisdiction; national federations must explicitly incorporate such provisions. The tribunal rejected Mokdad’s argument that FIFA statutes automatically applied, emphasizing the need for explicit statutory recognition. The ruling affirmed that TARLS decisions in club-player disputes are final unless the FAF is directly involved.
Ultimately, the CAS declared itself incompetent to hear Mokdad’s appeal, upholding the TARLS decision. The case illustrates the procedural rigor of sports arbitration and the necessity for parties to exhaust internal remedies before seeking international arbitration. It also underscores the challenges of enforcing contractual obligations and jurisdictional boundaries in sports-related disputes. The final award reinforced the principle that CAS jurisdiction depends on explicit provisions in national federation regulations, not merely on broader FIFA or UEFA statutes.