The case involves a complex legal dispute between Al Shorta Sports Club, FIFA, and Dalian Yifang FC, centered around contractual obligations and financial compensation related to the football player Nashat Akram. The dispute originated from contracts signed between Akram and Dalian Yifang FC in 2014, which included an employment contract and an image rights agreement. Dalian allegedly breached these contracts by failing to pay salaries, leading Akram to terminate the agreement and join Al Shorta. Akram filed a claim with FIFA, seeking unpaid wages and damages, while Dalian counterclaimed for breach of contract. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) initially dismissed Akram's claims and partially granted Dalian's counterclaim, ordering Akram to pay USD 690,000 in compensation, with Al Shorta held jointly and severally liable.
Akram appealed the FIFA DRC decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which partially upheld his appeal in 2016, reducing the compensation to USD 130,000 after offsetting unpaid amounts Dalian owed Akram (USD 560,000). The CAS also ordered interest at 5% per annum from 26 April 2015 until payment. However, Al Shorta did not appeal the FIFA DRC decision, making it final and binding for them. Dalian subsequently demanded payment from Al Shorta, citing their joint liability, but Al Shorta refused, leading FIFA's Disciplinary Committee to impose sanctions, including a fine and a potential points deduction, for non-compliance.
Al Shorta appealed the disciplinary decision to CAS, arguing that its liability was contingent on Akram's obligation, which had been reduced by the CAS ruling. Al Shorta also claimed its right to be heard was violated and that the debt had been extinguished through a set-off, as Akram had already satisfied part of the debt. FIFA, in response, maintained that the original DRC decision was binding on Al Shorta due to its failure to appeal and defended the disciplinary sanctions as proportionate.
The CAS panel ultimately ruled in favor of Al Shorta, concluding that Dalian had already received full payment through the offset and that demanding additional payment from Al Shorta would constitute unjust enrichment. The panel emphasized that joint and several liability under FIFA regulations means that if one party fulfills the obligation, the other is discharged. The decision underscores the principles of fairness and legal certainty in sports arbitration, ensuring that clubs are not subjected to excessive financial burdens beyond their contractual obligations. The appealed decision was set aside, and all other claims or requests for relief were dismissed. The case highlights the complexities of contractual disputes in football, including joint liability clauses, arbitration appeals, and enforcement challenges, while reinforcing the importance of procedural fairness and the finality of decisions.