The case revolves around a contractual dispute between Norwegian professional football player Etzaz Hussain and FC Astana, with involvement from FIFA and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Hussain claimed he signed a valid employment contract with FC Astana in September 2016, effective from January 2017 to December 2019, which included a monthly salary of EUR 41,500 and additional payments outlined in side agreements. He also alleged a representation contract with his agent. FC Astana denied these claims, asserting no contract was ever signed. In October 2016, Hussain signed a separate contract with Croatian club NK Rudeš, which he claimed was done at FC Astana’s suggestion to maintain his fitness before his supposed contract with them began. After playing four matches for Rudeš, his contract was terminated in December 2016. Hussain then demanded FC Astana comply with the alleged contract, including registration with the Kazakhstan Football Federation and payment obligations. When FC Astana failed to respond, Hussain filed a claim with FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), seeking EUR 1,544,000 in compensation for lost income.
The DRC rejected Hussain’s claim in August 2018, citing insufficient evidence to prove the existence of a valid contract, as Hussain failed to provide the original signed document and raised authenticity concerns about the signatures. Hussain appealed to CAS in December 2018, challenging the DRC’s decision. FIFA sought exclusion from the proceedings, arguing it was not a party to the dispute but merely the adjudicative body. Hussain insisted on FIFA’s involvement to impose sporting sanctions on FC Astana. The CAS panel, constituted in 2019, held hearings in Lausanne, where witness testimonies and expert analyses were presented. Hussain’s agent, Jim Solbakken, detailed the negotiations and signing process, while Hussain described a medical examination. A handwriting expert, Fiona Marsh, analyzed the signatures, noting similarities and differences but could not conclusively determine authenticity.
The CAS panel addressed several legal issues, including jurisdiction, standing, and contractual validity. It ruled that FIFA lacked standing to be sued, as it acted only as an adjudicative body and had no direct stake in the dispute. The panel also found that Hussain had no standing to request sporting sanctions against FC Astana, as such decisions fall solely under FIFA’s discretion. On the contractual claims, the panel concluded that Hussain’s signing of the Rudeš contract in October 2016 terminated any prior agreement with FC Astana, as per Article 18(5) of FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. The panel dismissed Hussain’s appeal, upholding the DRC’s decision that no valid contract existed with FC Astana.
The case highlights the complexities of contractual disputes in football, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation and the jurisdictional boundaries of sports arbitration bodies. It underscores the procedural principles governing standing, evidence, and the legal effects of subsequent contracts. The ruling reinforces FIFA’s authority in disciplinary matters and the stability of contractual agreements in professional football. Ultimately, the CAS panel’s decision dismissed all of Hussain’s claims, including compensation and sporting sanctions, and upheld the original DRC ruling.